(updated again re: Portgate)
No matter how strong of an immunity one thinks one has constructed against being shocked and disgusted by the acts of national Democrats, it always turns out that it's never actually strong enough. On Tuesday, after the Intelligence Committee vote not to investigate the President's illegal eavesdropping on Americans, Sen. Rockefeller angrily said that the Committee was "under the control" of the White House.
What a difference a day makes. Here is the description from The New York Times of what Sen. Rockefeller did yesterday:
But on Wednesday, the Democratic vice chairman of the committee, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, issued a conciliatory statement, saying that while he favored a full investigation, a committee decision on Tuesday to appoint a seven-member subcommittee to oversee the N.S.A. eavesdropping was "a step in the right direction."
It's difficult to add anything to that, except to note that Sen. Rockefeller did this because he apparently found out that he hurt the feelings of his Republican friends and colleagues on the Committee and decided that that wasn't a very nice or collegial thing to do, and he should therefore make them feel better by being conciliatory:
Pat Roberts said yesterday that he resented being portrayed as what he called a "lap dog of the administration" . . . .
The Republicans were miffed that Mr. Rockefeller, the committee's ranking Democrat, had portrayed them as caving in to White House pressure. On Tuesday, Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska and another author of the proposal, called that notion "laughable."
Mr. Hagel said he and Senators DeWine and Snowe were "three of the most independent Republicans" in the Senate and added, "I have never been accused of buckling to White House pressure."
I'm glad to see that Sen. Rockefeller feels bad about his impetuous remarks where he insinuated that Sens. Hagel, Snowe and DeWine -- "three of the most independent Republicans" in the Senate -- buckled under to White House pressure. That was a completely unfair accusation that had no basis to it at all. Why ever would he think that?
Of course, the reason Democrats have been doing poorly in elections is because they are way too mean and critical of Republicans and it's nice to see them finally looking for the good in their opponents' decisions and actions - just like Republicans always do for them. It is particularly heartening to see the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee praise the Committee's decision not to investigate allegations of the President's law-breaking and to eliminate judicial oversight for eavesdropping as a "step in the right direction."
To make full amends for his mean and inappropriate comments about his distinguished Republican colleagues, maybe Sen. Rockefeller -- after tearfully apologizing on the Senate floor -- can be the lead sponsor of the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 which will make legal the President's lawless warrantless eavesdropping on Americans. If he wants to show David Broder, Chris Matthews and Fred Hiatt that he's a serious Democrat who feels genuine remorse for what he did and that he understands the need to defeat Al Qaeda, nothing short of that will suffice. And the most amazing aspect of this whole episode is that it would not be particularly surprising if he did do that.
UPDATE: The New York Times editorial page is one of the very few journalistic corners which understands the true magnitude of this scandal, and today published an excellent editorial which included this:
The Senate Judiciary Committee is still looking into the wiretapping. That committee should have plenty of incentive to go forward — its chairman, Senator Arlen Specter, was righteously angry when he received a letter in which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales implied that there was more warrantless spying we don't know about. Mr. Gonzales won't even say that Mr. Bush understands it is blatantly illegal to spy on communications within the United States without a warrant. Nevertheless, there's not much cause for hope: Mr. Specter has a sad habit of bowing to the right wing when the chips are down.
There are moments when leaders simply have to take a stand. It seems to us that one of them is when Americans are in danger of the kind of unchecked surveillance that they thought had died with J. Edgar Hoover, Watergate and spying on Vietnam protesters and civil rights leaders.
Save some anger in the tank. You'll need it for when Arlen Specter decides that he's not that angry after all and calls off the hearings in light of the newfound cooperation which has arisen between the distinguished friends on both sides of the aisle.
UPDATE II: I received the following e-mail just now from Wendy Morigi, spokewoman for Sen. Rockefeller:
"Your blog was forwarded to me. It's clear to me that you’re basing your statements on the New York Times story and that you don't have the Senator's full statement, which I'm including below. I would in no way agree with the NY Times characterization that the following statement is 'conciliatory'.
"Senator Rockefeller’s point was that since the Republican’s refuse to do an investigation, a subcommittee would at least provide more oversight than what we have now. If you would like to be added to our distribution list, I'm happy to do so to ensure that you have accurate information in the future."
Best,
Wendy Morigi
___________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Wendy Morigi
March 8, 2006 (202) 224-6101
Statement from Senator Rockefeller on the Creation of a Senate Intelligence subcommittee to provide Oversight of NSA program
"At the end of the day, our goal should be to have the most effective and legally sound counterterrorism programs possible.
"A thorough review by the full committee would have given the American people much more confidence in achieving that goal, and I will continue to fight for the full committee to have access to this program.
"In the meantime, the creation of a subcommittee to conduct greater oversight is a step in the right direction.
"I have appointed Senators Levin and Feinstein to serve with me on the panel. As the most senior Democratic members of the Committee, I am confident that they will bring enormous expertise in intelligence matters, as well as a commitment to thoroughly understanding the program and its implications.
"Senator Levin brings a depth of experience on national defense programs through the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein brings a critical understanding of judicial review and constitutional protections.
"Now, the big test will be whether the seven member subcommittee will receive sufficient information to fully scrutinize the operations of the program and answer the critical legal and constitutional questions before them.
"In addition to White House led briefings, I strongly believe that the subcommittee immediately should have access to the answers of the 450 questions that I submitted to the NSA last week.
"This information will help to guide all members of the subcommittee about the extent of the program and the critical issues at stake. I also hope the subcommittee members can spend sufficient time at the NSA reviewing the operation of the program and getting their own questions answered.
"I continue to believe that legislating without knowing all the facts could do more harm than good. I’m hopeful that all members of this new panel will share the same goal of informing legislative debate before taking steps to strengthen the program for the future.”
To be honest, I really don't see how the Senator's full statement is any less conciliatory than The New York Times story suggested it was. It looks extremely conciliatory to me, to put it generously.
There's just a tone deafness in Washington. They don't recognize just how corrupt these actions are and how furious and disgusted so many Americans are as a result. But, like anything, that can be changed. At least they're hearing these things and are concerned enough to respond, for whatever that's worth. I described more of my views on the Rockefeller statement here in Comments.
UPDATE III: Author and military expert Lucian Truscott IV has posted a detailed and very interesting analysis as a guest post at Digby's which explores the financial motivations and cronyism aspects underlying Bush's conspicuous adamancy about proceeding with the UAE/Port deal.
Personally, I think that what motivates Bush's recalcitrance on this issue more than anything else is his belief that national security is his domain, where he exercises unchallenged reign and resents any questioning or interference with his decision. But Truscott makes a good case, with some original reporting and ample documentation, that classic Bush cronyism plays a significant role.
This is the single most disgusting quote I have ever seen. Thanks for ruining my breakfast.
ReplyDeleteI started to say several different things,but all that comes out is disgust.These idiots would apologize to the mugger for not having enough cash on them! Congress should just adjourn- they're worse than useless in session.
ReplyDeleteI heard Senator Feinstein on NPR last night talk about the new spying "oversight" committee that she was appointed to. And although I cannot now recall exactly what she said, I was left with the impression that she hardly knew what she was talking about and is kind of dillusional about the subject and the situation. It was sad and pathetic to hear her. National psychosis?
ReplyDeleteOn a more positive note, please keep up the good work here at your site, Glenn. I am coming to rely on your calm analysis and measured insights to help me make sense of what's happening to my poor country.
Will the FISA court be shut downnow, or will they just be ignored? In other words, is there a place for them in the evolving new system of government?
If I’m not mistaken, the New York Times editorial this morning jumped in on the Rockefeller criticism bandwagon.
ReplyDeleteToo often, their positions seem like campaign tactics, and Senator John Rockefeller IV fumbled by not consulting Ms. Snowe, who is up for re-election and under intense White House pressure.
If a member of the opposition party stands up for the rule of law, he or she is condemned as “partisan” but, let’s not forget that it is the administration who made this a “partisan” issue.
How can any response to these bullying tactics not be seen as ‘partisan’?
Just look at how silly things have become. The administration insists that members of both parties have been briefed on NSA, but when asked to provide a list on who has been briefed, they refused. Why is that secret? Will National Security be threatened if we know what members of Congress the administration claims they have briefed?
It is this sort of political dishonesty that we’re up against. Have honesty and integrity become “partisan” attributes as well? It sure looks that way.
Will the FISA court be shut downnow, or will they just be ignored? In other words, is there a place for them in the evolving new system of government?
ReplyDeleteAs I'm sure Sen. Rockefeller would be more than happy to explain, the FISA court is still super important. After all, the Intelligence Committee now requires that the Administration obtain FISA warrants "whenever possible." That is a very, very strong and precise requirement that I am sure the White House will feel compelled to honor.
Our government is like the Incredible Shrinking Man - all parts of it, except the presidency, get smaller and smaller with each passing day, a trend that looks to continue until it vanishes completely.
Out of the first four comments here - one suggested that Congress shut down and the other suggested that the FISA court be shut down. A sign of where we are is that both suggestions do rationally follow from the events of the day and doing that would not make a discernible difference in how our government functions.
Just when you think that someone in politics at least has the courage to stand on priciple, something like this happens to smack you down. I guess in a world where a man who was shot by the Vice-President issues a statement in which he apologizes for the "inconvenience" his being shot has brought upon the VP and his family, nothing is too outrageous. Sen Rockefeller has simply confirmed all that I didn;t want to buy into about the Democrats -- that they don't stand for anything. That this outrage can be perpetrated on the American people as Congress weakens one of the only protections we have against governmental intrusion into our private lives shows how far we've sunk. God help us.
ReplyDeleteIn comments on JustOneMinute Clarice, a DC Republican lawyer with ties to Watergate, was floating a DC rumor that Rockefeller might lose his security clearance soon (alluding to this conflict).
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that be just like the WH crowd. And the senior Democrat in this Committee, her target, wants to play nice.
In comments on JustOneMinute Clarice, a DC Republican lawyer with ties to Watergate, was floating a DC rumor that Rockefeller might lose his security clearance soon (alluding to this conflict).
ReplyDeleteThey've started a whispering campaign claiming that Rockefeller was one of the leakers to the NYT. I've been seeing that slithering out from under various Bush-loving rocks. I have no idea if there is any substance to it or not but it would not surprise me in the slightest if Rockefeller was scared by. If we've heard these rumors, he obviously has, too.
Glenn said: " I have no idea if there is any substance to it or not but it would not surprise me in the slightest if Rockefeller was scared by."
ReplyDeletePolitics, politics, tsk.
What now? Will the president's NSA program be investigated by anyone? Are there individual lawsuits that will challenge the legality of the program?
Well, Senator Hagel can no longer say that he has never been accused of buckling to White House pressure. I just called his office and accused him of it.
ReplyDeleteThere are these and others, Karen A, but I have no idea if we can take comfort from them: USNews: A series of federal court challenges may test the legality of the Bush Administration's warrantless spying program
ReplyDeletestepford wives, anyone?
ReplyDeleteThey've started a whispering campaign claiming that Rockefeller was one of the leakers to the NYT. I've been seeing that slithering out from under various Bush-loving rocks. I have no idea if there is any substance to it or not but it would not surprise me in the slightest if Rockefeller was scared by. If we've heard these rumors, he obviously has, too.
ReplyDeleteI will repeat my comment from yesterday. The NSA spying program has noting to do with national security.
I guess he no longer has serious concerns, as expressed in his handwritten letter to Cheney.
ReplyDeletehttp://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/rock-cheney1.html
Can we call the Mounties? Can we ask them to arrest all the law breakers? Congress has forgotten there are consequences for criminal acts. Of course so many of them are the criminals. Perhaps they want anarchy. I'm pretty sure the Mounties would conclude there's an abundance of evidence, eh?
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm a bit dense, but is anyone else puzzled by Mo's claim the NSA program "has nothing to do with national security"?
ReplyDeleteHi Glenn - I am a lawyer and was wondering if you might comment on the following. It strikes me that the new "oversight" procedure, wherein the administration reports its warrantless searches to a subcommittee in congress, is unconstitutional under INS v. Chadha, 462 US 919 (1983).
ReplyDeleteChadha is the case in which the Supreme Court struck down the "legislative veto" where a single house of congress has authority to override executive action. In Chadha, the House of Representatives was given authority to effectively veto the Atty Gen's decision to admit an alien. So INS admitted Chadha, but then the House Judiciary Committee vetoed his admission.
The Court found that this procedure violated the bicameral clauses of the Constitution. According to the court, a federal statute may not empower a subset of Congress to take legislative action that the Constitution requires be taken by a bicameral, majority vote legislature.
It seems to me, the new proposed law is similarly unconstitutional. Any thoughts?
Shorter Rockefeller: "People said it wasn't possible for a politician to have less balls than 'moderate Republicans', but that's not only mean, it's wrong - look at me!"
ReplyDeleteFrom Rockefeller, Levin, and Feinstein (to Reid & Frist, 11/17/05):
ReplyDeleteWe believe that only by promptly producing a thorough and complete report will the Committee fulfill the promise it made to the American people and help answer the troubling questions surrounding the use of intelligence in the months leading up to our Nation’s decision to go to war. America needs to know whether the public statements of policymakers before the war were substantiated by the intelligence.
From Rockefeller’s homepage on the same date:
“First and foremost, we cannot allow the delay in proceeding with Phase II to compromise the quality of the investigation and the report. We must apply the same standards of professionalism that was used to produce the first report which dealt exclusively with the quality and objectivity of prewar intelligence assessments.”
The point of all this is obvious; the Bush Administration will always succeed in burying those investigations that threaten its existence, i.e., include impeachable offenses.
Cheney has dossiers on every member of Congress, probably courtesy of the same ubiquitous NSA, to mine for coercive details; career vs. the protection of the American people; career always wins.
I could easily create a ten-page list of “investigations” that have been jackbooted into oblivion. First, the Administration goes to its Orwellian playbook for the appropriate language to turn the issue inside-out, reverse the polarity of logic, and instigate a level of fear and compliance. Then the screws are put to the thumbs of anyone (Congress, media, recalcitrant staffers) who suggests that the Administration is acting outside of its legal purview, never mind outside of ethical or moral standards.
My only hope in all of this is that it will be the Administration’s own hubris – see Gonzales: NSA Program doesn’t need a law) – that is its undoing. Of course, if the public media begins to do its job, and a few brave “informers” let us know about all of the other concomitant black-ops being used against us, then even the most cynical, myself amongst them, may stop having nightmares about the near future.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThere are these and others, Karen A, but I have no idea if we can take comfort from them: USNews: A series of federal court challenges may test the legality of the Bush Administration's warrantless spying program.
Unfortunately, Anon, while it's nice that somebody is making the effort and we should cheer them on, I wouldn't count on any of these cases getting anywhere. There are so many procedural and legal hurdles, not to mention the government's trump card, "we don't have to tell anybody anything in any stupid old lawsuit--national security, you know," that it is unlikely that these efforts will have any great success.
I, too, am thoroughly disgusted by the hypocritical "moderate" Republicans, but as Glenn has pointed out, it's not really anything that should surprise us. The Republicans are first and foremost interested in keeping the power, both collectively and individually. Snowe and Hagel may talk the talk, but they will never walk the walk if they think that hey might lose their seats on the committee or be punished in some other way.
As for the Dems, they're disappointing, too, but on the other hand, I'm sure they are getting completely demoralized from beating their heads on a brick wall all day and night long, so let's try to have a little bit of sympathy. (I've heard that rumor about Rockefeller, too, and I have no doubt it's true and he's scared. It makes me sick.) Then let's kick 'em in their asses, tell them to get over it, regroup, and start fighting again.
At this point, though, I think the best hope is to keep working on Specter. I lived and practiced law in Philadelphia for over 20 years and have a pretty good handle on how the guy thinks and one thing he does care about is the law. He's weak, though, and has frequently sacrificed his respect for the law on the altar of party loyalty (case in point: doing his best to destroy Anita Hill to get that nitwit Clarence Thomas confirmed to the Supremes.)
But Arlen is an old man in what is almost certainly his last term and he might be thinking about his legacy. Maybe he wants to be remembered as something more than just Arlen Specter, Republican hack, and father of the single bullet theory. Besides, he is really pissed about this NSA business. So, I think there may be a chance that if enough pressure is put on him from all possible sources, he might not back down on this and might push forward with a real investigation. It's worth our making the effort to push him towards that result.
Kris C.
Glenn updates AL's post to remind us that the illegal wiretapping issue has multiple prongs.
ReplyDeleteSalon's War Room reports that there's a new front opening up today:
In a federal court in New York today, the Center for Constitutional Rights will file a motion seeking an injunction ordering an immediate halt to the spying program.
The center's lawyers argue that the Bush administration has already admitted enough facts to establish that the warrantless spying program is illegal. "The only facts necessary to resolve this dispute have been admitted by defendants," they write in their motion for partial summary judgment. "They have admitted that the NSA spying program exists, that it consists of 'electronic surveillance' that would otherwise be covered by FISA, and that it monitors calls and emails between persons outside the United States and persons inside the United States, where the government has reason to believe that one of the persons is associated with al Qaeda or unspecified groups supportive of al Qaeda, or otherwise fits its open-ended criteria for targeting. In addition, defendants have admitted that they conduct the surveillance without judicial approval in the form of a court order."
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm a bit dense, but is anyone else puzzled by Mo's claim the NSA program "has nothing to do with national security"?
I think the theory is that the reason the Admin is so strenuously resisting any investigation is that the NSA spying is being used in large part, if not exclusively, for spying on "enemies" of the Bush government. Personlly, I don't think it's used primarily for that purpose, but I have no doubt that it is a significant part of what the NSA is up to. After all, they have spied on groups of Quaker pacifists as supposedly being security risks and called everybody who disagrees with them traitors. If we're all traitors, it seems like we should be surveilled, doesn't it?
Maybe I'm a bit dense, but is anyone else puzzled by Mo's claim the NSA program "has nothing to do with national security"?
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty clear that there has been no enhancement to national security from this program.
None of the evidence is admissible, and it may taint evidence otherwise admissible.
They haven't caught anybody because of this information. In a normal administration I might be willing to credit the notion that they had caught people or stopped things because of this program, but didn't want to talk about it.
But they've talked up every little thing they've found, including the guy who thought about taking down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch and the pizza man who was entrapped into a money laundering scheme.
You may also recall the recent NYTimes article in which FBI agents said they've been given thousands of leads, and they've all been dead ends.
What is increasingly disturbing about this is their insistence on continuing it in the face of its ineffectiveness and its illegality.
Mr. Greenwald took a very strong stand last Saturday:
ReplyDelete“There is no conceivable rationale for the Intelligence Committee not to hold hearings.”
Well, that was clearly hyperbole because that same post went on to say:
“On March 1, Harry Reid wrote a letter to Bill Frist... demanding that Sen. Roberts allow a vote on Rockefeller's motion to hold NSA hearings and threatening to bring the matter to the full Senate if Roberts again blocks an up-or-down vote on the motion. “
Frist fired back [my emphasis]: “...stifling partisanship that is exhibited by repeated calls by Democrats on the Committee to conduct politically-motivated investigations. ...If attempts to use the committee’s charter for political purposes exist, we may have to simply acknowledge that nonpartisan oversight, while a worthy aspiration, is simply not possible.”
That same post then quotes Pat Roberts in a speech: “Since the Committee’s inception, a consensus has existed among both parties that the unique rules of the Committee – which provide a much greater balance of power between the majority and minority in order to ensure that intelligence oversight is not politicized ...The unique bipartisan nature of this committee is its greatest strength and is essential to the ability of the committee to develop a consensus product and to avoid all of the politics of our Nation's intelligence activities. . . .The legislative record reflects that the Senators who really created the Intelligence Committee believed--this is so important--that the less partisan nature of the committee would serve to make the intelligence community more willing to keep the Congress fully and currently informed of highly sensitive intelligence activity.”
We are all familiar with the metaphor of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. While Mr. Greenwald did an excellent (probably Wampum-prize-winning) job of crafting the sheep’s clothing, the impeachment fangs just could not be covered over.
When all was said and done, Mr. Reid no doubt decided that the American public would see through an attempt to arouse the full Senate on this issue given the nature of the settlement that was worked out.
Forget the campaign of 2006 and 2008. Is allowing the Intelligence Committee to be used for partisan purposes a good thing? Once the camel’s nose is in that tent.....
Yes, I know, everyone here is a Constitutional scholar interested only in conforming our government to the branch balance concept, etc. Of course, should a pure-motived inquiry turn up something that could be used to initiate impeachment proceedings against BushHitlerMcChimpy.....Sorry Charlie, the fangs are showing.
I think Mr. Reid wisely backed off. Being seen as willing to risk the safety of the Homeland to advance political power is...how do I say it....not good positioning. Maybe the Democratic leadership is not as bad as advertised.
Here's part of an email I got from Sen. Harry Reid yesterday:
ReplyDelete"It was no surprise to me that the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee has once again caved to George Bush and refused to open an investigation into President Bush's domestic spying program. One is left to wonder what it would take to make this Republican Congress stop rubberstamping the Bush Administration and actually do real oversight."
Here is my response to him today:
"Dear Senator Reid,
No, it was no surprise that the likes of Republican Senators Snowe and Hagel caved in to the Cheney's pressure, but I have to say that I am even more disgusted by the unforgivable about-face of DEMOCRATIC Sen. Rockefeller. He gave a forthright statement on Tuesday about the cave-in of the Repubs on the Intel Committee, then on Wednesday caved in himself. In my view, he has done more damage in contributing to the continuing irrelevancy of the Congress and the Democratic Party than Roberts, Snowe, and Hagel combined.
I am fed up, and do not intend to contribute anything more to the Democratic Party unless and until they start showing some spine and the ability to adhere to principles. If politics always trumps principles, then what difference does it make?
I will continue to support individuals, such as Sen. Feingold and Reps. Conyers and Murtha, because they have guts and principles."
Cheney has dossiers on every member of Congress, probably courtesy of the same ubiquitous NSA, to mine for coercive details; career vs. the protection of the American people; career always wins.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the NSA program is the gathering and holding of dirt for "liberal" use as needed by the WH. If it actually involved national security, the WH could easily obtain warrants for the surveillance.
Rove/Chaney are Nixonians. Their enemies are legion as far as they are concerned. Thus, ends justify means.
I think Glenn and all of you here are quite right about the national democratic leadership. They are the spineless, selfish, unprincipled personal power mongers, yet cowards about which Glenn regularly slings his mud a approbation.
ReplyDeleteThey are not worthy of the intellectual giants like Glenn and his followers here.
Everyone here should do that which you decry so loudly the democrats in congress fail to do.
You should show your willingness to continue the good fight and denounce those democrats who do not support that which you advocate. Do the principled thing that you demand of these democrats and renounce support for the democrat party, and move in mass and at once to the Green Party or any other far left party of your chosing.
Should you fail to do this, aren't Glenn and all of you just the same kind of sniveling cowards without the courage to act for what is right and good that you decry in the democrats of congress?
Says the "Dog"
A cheatsheet for Sen. Rockefeller on the differences between politics and playing whiffle ball at a Children't Birthday Party:
ReplyDelete--At a children's birthday party, winning and losing is not the most important thing, so play nice. In politics, not letting our country descend into a cesspool is the most important thing, so play to win.
--At a children's birthday party, it's important not to hurt anybody's feelings, even if they are being big babies. In politics, everybody act like big babies, and people whose feelings can get hurt by political opponents saying mean things about them should get out.
--At a children's birthday party, if you ever manage to get anyone by the balls, you should let go right away. In politics...well, I'm sure I've carried this analogy quite far enough.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI thought you should know that I was not suggesting the FISA court be shut down when I rhetorically asked in an earlier post if "there's a place for them (the FISA court) in the evolving new system of government?"
If anything, I believe that Congressional oversight of the court should be strengthened so that the supposedly inalienable rights of Americans are protected. That's not happening, no thanks to a spineless and slimy Congress, who it seems have abandoned the people to whatever fate the administration has in store for us. And, tinfoil hat aside, I no longer have any doubts that they do have plans.
One issue that needs to be addressed is the important difference between judicial oversight and legislative oversight. The judiciary was designed to be independent from the political processes and pressures that are inherent in the other two branches of government.
ReplyDeleteIt seems obvious to me that judicial oversight would be preferential on an issue such as this, with decisions about a warrant being made based on legal expertise, not political convenience or posturing. I don't want a warrantless search to be allowed to continue 45 days after the fact just because the administration promises to push for construction of that new highway through a Senator's home district.
This is so disappointing. I've been thinking over the last few weeks that the only way this warrantless spying can stop is if Democrats win back the House and Senate. Now I don't even think that will work, because the Senators we have are such cowards. Way to discourage the 'roots there Democratic Party!
I know the rumor about security clearance has been floated, but so what? If there's any way of revoking his clearance, the Republicans are going to do it, whether or not he makes conciliatory speeches - and he should know that. Is he just completely out of touch with public opinion to call this "a step in the right direction"? Does he think the public is overwhelmingly for everything Bush wants to do? Does he think this is still 2002?
So, to sum up, the FISA process has been gutted, replaced by a rubber stamp political process with no teeth that does nothing to stop such spying. And the Democrats find a way to be completely useless yet again.
I think the Onion sums things up about as well as anyone:
ReplyDeleteDemocrats Vow Not To Give Up Hopelessness
Good for a laugh on an otherwise cheerless day...
I don’t know if this has been pointed out elsewhere but Froomkin has a nice summary of this, bringing it all back to Cheney.
ReplyDeleteGod, my "anger tank" has been running on fumes for so long I can't remember what fresh outrage feels like. I do know that I make daily visits to this blog and others just to hang on to the slight vestiges of hope that I can manage to muster. I am serious! This crap is too depressing for words. All I can say is, Please Glenn and A. L. Keep up the great work! You are a lifeline to those of us who are drowning in despair.
ReplyDeleteThe tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson
ReplyDeleteFor the friggin love of pete. This is why we will be wandering the wilderness for years to come. We need to come to terms with the fact that our party is broke, and the long process of "adjustment" must begin.
ReplyDeleteIn deals with the devil, the devil usually wins. One hears much from this administration about matters of faith. But no administration in recent memory has dealt with Congress with more bad faith than this one.
ReplyDeleteSenate "Intelligence" Committee. We have witnessed the oxymoron(s) being conceived in real time.
ReplyDeleteI heard Senator Feinstein on NPR last night talk about the new spying "oversight" committee
ReplyDeleteNo one in the Senate can tell the difference between 'oversight' and overlook.
Mo, I owe you an apology. I thought you were one of our resident contrarians, claiming this program was a legal exercise of Executive power.
ReplyDeleteI agree, there is is strong likelihood this program has nothing to do with improving national security. Or, to be generous about it, this program's intent is to improve the GOP's 'job security' first and the nation's actual security second.
Given the President has already admitted to circumventing the legal avenues he's obligated to follow and the Attorney General's continued mis-leading Congress, this is about as generous as I'm willing to be, vis-a-vis the intents here.
Mo, I again apologize for thinking you in the same camp as Bart and company.
With this new committee, are we now in a situation where congress has gone outside their constitutional job?
ReplyDeleteIs congress allowed to issue warrents? Are they not in effect issueing defacto warrents for spying by not requiring warrents if the only legal way to spy on someone is with a warrent?
Can congress change the law from requiring warrents to not requiring warrents without a constitutional amendment?
I ask, because of the "when ever possible" language. This implies that warrents are not necessary anymore. Congress just invalidated the third branch.
"Senator Rockefeller’s point was that since the Republican’s refuse to do an investigation, a subcommittee would at least provide more oversight than what we have now."
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree. This isn't a dispute over policy, it's a dispute over legality. Does Sen. Rockefeller's office believe that a subcommittee to oversee the illegal actions of the Nixon White House would have been better than nothing at all?
Congressional oversight of an illegal act does nothing but lend credence to Bush's claim that he has the authority to break the law.
If Rockefeller is the "voice" of the democratic party, WE ARE IN TROUBLE!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThis man clearly does not represent the interests of the common man. He takes some positions that might seem fairly
progression, but that is easy to do when you are the descendent of a man that ruled global capitalism....
uuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmm, yeah......
Even if he did have the interests of common people at heart (big "if"), certainly must be enough "skeletons" in that closet that doing something meaningful is out of the question.
When I hear people talk about Rockefeller and Specter as being "part of the solution," I just have to roll my eyes.
Rockefeller is actually part of chimpy's "superrich" base and "magic-bullet" Specter was part of the greatest cover-up in the 20th century - jfk assassination and warren commission.
Lest some copy-and-paste troll decide to make the thread a "debate" of the "magic bullet," let's be clear, the larger point is how the Warren Commission stifled all meaningful inquiry, having determined from the start that oswald acted alone.
Those that loot our economy and enable coup-detats are not going to save us now.
Maybe its true -- those that doen't learn history are doomed to relive it...
Samurai Sam summarized this well. It is about legality, not about briefing Senators. What recourse do the senators have if they believe the program is illegal? What guarantees do the senators have that they are being told about the full scope of surveillance activities within the US? It is about the law, not about briefing senators.
ReplyDeleteSo, can someone explain something? Can "covert" activities of our government be, prima facie, illegal? Is there a difference between "covert" and "classified"?
ReplyDeleteCitizens probably have some vague notion that our government does illegal or quasi-legal things in the name of national security...
Most of these things happen in foreign countries though, right? Citizens don't have a feeling that it's OK to do illegal things HERE, in our own country, against our own citizens, do they??
The purpose of the Senate from the its
ReplyDeletecreation and inception by the Founding Fathers was not to be a bastion and last defense for democracy, but to do the opposite. The FF were most afraid of the "mob", i.e. the great mass of American voters who were not rich, not well educated, didn't own printing presses or plantations and who might vote against the interests of the "ruling class". The Senate (and the Electoral College) stand as bastions against the impulses of representative democracy. The Senate is run like an exclusive "good old boys" club where intemperate remarks must be suppressed, else they become no better than the House of Representatives. Did the Democratic Senators really LIKE Antonin Scalia? You'd think so from the 98-0 vote to accept his nomination to the Supremes. But more likely, in absence of any obvious mental or emotional deformity, they collegially vote "yea" anyway.
DON'T look to the Senate to protect the rights of the citizens or to man the bastions against tyranny.
That's not what they do.
OT but falling into the CONNECT THE DOTS catagory:
ReplyDelete“What are you benching, buff guy?” ~~~President Bush to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff
"Your itty-bitty bar-bell if Gannon/Guckert hasn't already sucked it off", ~~~Jack Abramoff
Full story at 10:
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/03/09/bushs-abramoff-towel-snaps/#more-1960
I completely disagree. This isn't a dispute over policy, it's a dispute over legality. Does Sen. Rockefeller's office believe that a subcommittee to oversee the illegal actions of the Nixon White House would have been better than nothing at all?
ReplyDeleteExactly. That is precisely the point.
Is a tiny bit of oversight better than no oversight at all? Sure, in theory. Fine. But the point is that the Republicans on the Committee just completely abdicated their responsibilities and covered-up illegality on the part of the President. To praise the conduct of those same individuals two days later is unfathomable, and politically stupid. Of course the NYT saw the statement as "conciliatory" - it contains PRAISE for what the Republicans did ("a step forward"). What is that if not conciliatory?
To me, it would be like getting mugged and shot by the muggers, and then afterwards, praising them for throwing you a band aid as they ran away with your wallet. Sure - it's better to have the band-aid than not have it - but praising the muggers for that tiny act in the context of the crimes they committed would be as pitiful as it is bewildering.
That's how I see Sen. Rockefeller's statement.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteMo, I owe you an apology. I thought you were one of our resident contrarians, claiming this program was a legal exercise of Executive power.
Hey, no problem. Democrats, progressives, liberals, lawyers who truly love the law and Joe Six Pack, have real difficulty with issues like the NSA program. We (and I include myself in this category) have a tendency to believe that people/politicians make their decisions based on "what is best for the country, best for the people". That's simply not true. Perhaps at one time, years ago, this was true, I doubt it. Today, however, America's dirty laundry is in plain view.
The corporatist who run this country and for that matter the world have nothing but contempt for the plight of ordinary folks. That contemptuous attitude has widened the gap between the ultra rich and the rest of us. The rest of the world knows this, Americans are just beginning to catch on.
Glenn, please update your main post with your comment at 2:03 PM.
ReplyDeleteAbdication of Responsibility. Seems to be a theme ...
Why couldn't Rockefeller just say it was WRONG?
ReplyDeleteWhy can't senate democrats hold together on anything?
AAARRRRGGHH!!!!
Glenn, thanks for your wonderful reporting on this subject. It's really a joy to read your posts.
ReplyDeleteI, for one, have never been a fan of Senator Rockefeller. He's a thoughtful and careful legislator, but his political instincts are horrible. The Republicans have been gaming him for years. This is just the latest example of how he allows himself to be neutralized whenever he starts to find his voice. It's maddening. If there has ever been an argument for changing how Senate Democrats select ranking committee members, he's it. The minority leader needs more discretion in appointing committee heads. Effectiveness ought to outweigh length of service. Leahy is my other poster-child for rules changes; however, lately, he's rightly gotten his back up over the President's illegal surveillance program.
Can "covert" activities of our government be, prima facie, illegal? Is there a difference between "covert" and "classified"?
ReplyDeleteCovert operations take place on foreign soil, are run by the military or the DoD and must be directly approved by the president in a "finding." A covert operative is one who is working under cover. Valerie Plame was a covert operative, under non-official cover. That is, she wasn't at an embassy.
"Classified" means that material is sensitive. There are different levels of clssification. Valerie's Plames status as a covert operative was classified information.
Something few people have remarked upon is that having access to classified material is not merely a question of clearance to see material at a given level of classification. An essential part of an effective security system is compartmentalizing information further--limiting access to those who have a need to know it.
This "need to know" business is independent of clearance status or degree of seniority. There is, for example, no reason that I can think of for the president, the vice president or any staff member to know the name of any CIA agent working under non-official cover.
In a well-designed security system, the question of learning Plame's name would not have arisen. That case illustrates the contempt that the administration has for actual security issues. Secrecy and classification is used to advance political causes, and nothing else.
Democrats are battered. Please note, they are criticized if they speak out, if they do not speak out, if they unify behind an idea/legislation, if their support is fractured. This meme is perpetuated and passed along multiple times through right wing blogs, right wing radio, in right wing publications and on right wing television. To this mix add, the DNC who eats its own.
ReplyDeleteGotta love it.
"I’m hopeful that all members of this new panel will share the same goal of informing legislative debate before taking steps to strengthen the program for the future."
ReplyDeleteBefore taking steps to strengthen the program? W/T/F happened to a cease and desist since the program is ILLEGAL? Ms. Morigi is correct; Rockefeller's statement isn't conciliatory. It is capitulatory, obsequious, and cowardly.
Rocky can't even get Phase II of the Iraq intelligence investigation out of which ever hole it is buried in - an investigation in itself that has at its heart the same issues as the NSA scandal,
The Intelligence Committee is investigating possible violations of the 1947 National Security Act, which requires the heads of all departments to:
"(1) keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities, other than a covert action (as defined in section 503(e)), which are the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or on behalf of, any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity and any significant intelligence failure; and
(2) furnish the congressional intelligence committees any information or material concerning intelligence activities, other than covert actions, which is within their custody or control, and which is requested by either of the congressional intelligence committees in order to carry out its authorized responsibilities."
Cheney simply asks Rocky, "What part of 'we've got pictures, video, phone conversations, and receipts that we can hand over to your wife and kids' don't you understand? It's a wonder what these techies can do with photoshop and computer graphics."
The second part of the Senate investigation into bungled pre-war Iraq intelligence is still being held up by an internal Pentagon investigation of Douglas Feith, one of the war's leading architects.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) inquiry -- titled Phase II -- is waiting on a report from the Pentagon inspector general as to Feith's alleged role in manipulating pre-war intelligence to support a case for war. Feith, who is also being probed by the FBI for his role in an Israeli spy case, resigned in January 2005.
Iran will already be a pile of smouldering rubble before we see any of these investigations continuing. The ports deal shell game has the public too mesmerized to see beyond Blitzer's nose.
Welcome to the New World Order - where Bush will reign as Supreme Leader from Dubai (he'd like to be closer to the oil).
Just trying to look at the bright side of things in a dark week - I think its great that this blog has become so loud and influential that when Glenn writes a critical post about a Senator, his primarly spokesperson has to write to Glenn trying to correct it and defend the Senator.
ReplyDeleteI honestly believe the blogosphere is the only hope, so Im glad to see when it gets heard like this.
Not to sound mean or anything, but hasn't Sen. Rockefeller always been considered a bit of a dim bulb anyways?
ReplyDeletePity the poor staffers.
Pat Roberts said yesterday that he resented being portrayed as what he called a "lap dog of the administration" . . . .
ReplyDeleteWell then, Pat, get off your friggin' knees! *sheesh*
But as I pointed out in a previous thread, Roberts is not so much afraid of the maladministration as he is of the wrath of the Republican machine. Actually, take that back, he's not afraid of the wrath of the Republican machine, he's a major part of the Republican machine. And to these folks, bidness is bidness.... So, in that respect, he's right; he's not beholden to the maladministration; rather he's just an amoral, Constitution-trashing Republican cog intent on building and maintaining the Fourth Reich by whatever means necessary. Power is everything.
Cheers,
The Committee's "raison d'etre" from their website: "Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States".
ReplyDeleteSo, either the wiretapping does "conform to the constitution and laws" or the "purpose of the resolution" is not being fulfilled.
Whichever, the committee shall henceforth be referred to as the Senate Ignorance Committee or SIC.
Njorl:
ReplyDeleteTo streamline government security policies, I suggest we append those two words, "whenever possible", to the end of each amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Tell you what, let's see if we can get a Democratic Senator with a backbone to introduce a Constitutional amendment that does just that....
Anyone up for asking Feingold?
Cheers,
snacktime:
ReplyDeleteThe Court found that this procedure violated the bicameral clauses of the Constitution. According to the court, a federal statute may not empower a subset of Congress to take legislative action that the Constitution requires be taken by a bicameral, majority vote legislature.
It seems to me, the new proposed law is similarly unconstitutional. Any thoughts?
Distinguish, my good man. This "compromise" doesn't empower the Senate to do jack-s*** about anything. There's not "veto" involved.
Cheers,
At this point the only real option I see for the country as a whole is the impeachment of Bush. If congress fails to do that it might as well simply crown him emperor for life, because that's going to happen.
ReplyDeleteJust to beart a dead horse into a pulp, may as well point out once again that the excuse for all these incursions into our liberties (and for the outrageous opaqueness and "secrecy" of the maladministration) is that we're supposedly in a period of ultimate peril unknown in our history and that this imminent danger requires a complete rewrite of everything we once thought we knew.
ReplyDeleteThe story is "9/11 chenged everything".
But that is, from a historical standpoint, complete balderdash. While terrorist attacks may cause significant damage and casualties, they have absolutely no chance of defeating or subjugating the United States. At least three actual wars have posed far more peril to the United States, and we didn't need our civil liberties to be curtailed of the Constitution to be trashed (and in the few instances where it was, those episodes are now considered to be aberrations and black stains on our history). Then there's the Cold War, with once again far more peril to the existence of the United States (and similar concerns about "plots" and "subversives").
What's more, these incursions on our rights and the Constitution haven't even been shown to be any more effective than our standard means of defence; not only are they not justified and not legal, they're ineffective!
What the right wants is a "rewrite" of our founding documents and philosophy ... all under the excuse of some imagined great peril.
This is the message that needs to get out: That the danger of terrorism, while individually appalling just for the inhumanity and gruesomeness of it, is hardly an excuse to throw away precisely what it was that made the United States a country worth defending in the first place.
We need senators, representatives, and party leaders to make that case, and to make it strongly.
I got yet another call from the DCCC yesterday asking for money. I told them once again that they can expect no more money from me until they get a backbone. The caller said that this isn't the first time he's heard that. Well, good, let's keep it up and put the pressure on Democratic candidates and officials to stand up for their country ... the country the Founders so wisely established, and which has endured so well and prospered so well under those principles.
Cheers,
notherbob2 said:
ReplyDeleteBeing seen as willing to risk the safety of the Homeland to advance political power is...how do I say it....not good positioning.
Why? Seems to have worked for the phonied-up and disastrous Iraq war.....
Cheers,
"Yet the judges believed they did not have the authority to rule on the president's power to order the eavesdropping, government sources said, and focused instead on protecting the integrity of the FISA process."
ReplyDeleteFrom the WashPo article you linked.
It is obvious the top FISA judges believed they did not have the authority to overrule Bush.
It is kind of hard to build a case that Bush does not have inherent powers when the top judges in the FISA process believe they do not have the authority (whether legally or constitutionally) to overrule the program.
It is obvious the top FISA judges believed they did not have the authority to overrule Bush.
ReplyDeleteIt is kind of hard to build a case that Bush does not have inherent powers when the top judges in the FISA process believe they do not have the authority (whether legally or constitutionally) to overrule the program.
This comment reveals a total lack of understanding of how our judicial system works. Judges can't just run around striking laws down. They don't have that power. They can only issue rulings when resolving cases which present a "case or controversy" before them or which Congress gives them the power to decide.
FISA court judges lack the authority to rule that the NSA program is illegal. The only purpose of that court is to adjudicate the Government's request for eavesdropping warrants. To interpret their failure to rule the program illegal as some sort of belief on their part that program is constitutional is premised on a complete lack of understanding of how our judicial system works.
The FISA judges went out of their way to signal their grave displeasure with this program and to exercise all of the powers they had against it. One judge even quit in protest. I would suggest that all of the available evidence strongly indicates that the FISA judges look quite unfavorably on this program - which is likely why the WH fought so hard against Specter's proposal to have them rule on its legality.
The corporatist who run this country and for that matter the world have nothing but contempt for the plight of ordinary folks.
ReplyDeleteSpot on! Its insanity to think the grandson of one of the "robber barrons" will promote the interests of typical Americans.
Chimpy and gang are obviously not competent enough to have stolen 2 elections -- this was engineered by people that prefer to stay in the background....
That way, when this current bunch is no longer useful, they can enable and promote another batch of morons.
We need to look past this administration if we really want to see positive change.
Why couldn't Rockefeller just say it was WRONG?
ReplyDeleteYou obviously don't know that "Jay" is really John IV and that he is a direct descendent of one of the world's greatest robber barrons.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, issued a conciliatory statement, saying that while he favored a full investigation, a committee decision on Tuesday to appoint a seven-member subcommittee to oversee the N.S.A. eavesdropping was "a step in the right direction."
ReplyDeleteOr as Demi Moore put it in G.I. Jane:
"Is one measure of progress a cannibal's use of a knife and fork?"
Give me a break.
Propagandee
What does the right say about the Intelligence Committee vote? Check out the WSJ:
ReplyDelete“At least this rout [portgate] can be attributed to GOP panic in the face of lousy poll numbers and a company owned by Arabs. Less explicable is this week's White House mugging by Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee... On this one, Republicans were winning, the polls showed public support, and everyone outside the fever swamps had dropped their "impeachment" fantasies.”
Hmmmm...anyone here have “impeachment” fantasies before yesterday?
”Expanding the list of Senators who oversee the program is likely to make every individual even less accountable if something does leak, or if there is an intelligence screwup. We'll know that's the case if Mr. Rockefeller names Michigan Democrat Carl Levin to the new subcommittee...”
Apparently they view Mr. Levin as the fox in the hen-house.
”We appreciate that a President with a 40% approval rating has to pick his fights carefully, though we think he could have won this one had the Senate voted for a wiretap probe.”
Guess they would find an argument on that claim here.
They've started a whispering campaign claiming that Rockefeller was one of the leakers to the NYT. I've been seeing that slithering out from under various Bush-loving rocks.
ReplyDeleteWell, some of those slithering out are suggesting that not only would it be ok to wiretap Rockefeller's office and secretly examine his computer files to determine if he was, in fact, the leaker, but also insisting that the Dept. of Justice has “probable cause for a warrant to search Rockefeller's office and email. It also appears that they are in the process of doing just that.”
Is this just a case of right-wing fantasies run amok, or is there a possibility of something like this happening – and if not, just what is in place to keep it from happening.
We’ve descended into such a lawless wonderland of thuggish Nixonian behavior that I don’t know what to think anymore.
The administration is certainly making threatening moves against journalists in this leak case, what’s to keep them from doing the same against opposition politicians?
If rumors of this are enough to perhaps intimidate Rockefeller, then why couldn’t it happen? If it was not feasible, why would he be intimidated? Sorry if these are naive questions.
The Republicans have been gaming him for years.
ReplyDeleteAnd you think this is all "OOOOPS! SHIT HAPPENS?"
LOL - get real...
has battered the American people as a whole
ReplyDeletewell, duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhh
And you think the purpose of stealing presidential elections was to represent the will of the people and uphold the constitution?
give me a break...
Why couldn't Rockefeller just say it was WRONG?
ReplyDeleteCuz to the military-industrial complex, he is RIGHT!
Do you get it now? Where do you think the Rockefeller family fortune came from anyhow?
I can only find solace in one thing about this. It is quite obvious that the only meaningful opposition to the Adminstration is going to come from the people first, not their representatives. Apparently this issue doesn't raise enough awareness (unlike the much less improtant Dubai Ports issue). So this allows the Admin to continue to believe it can do as it wishes, meaning the next revelation will be even worse (domestic spying on political enemies?).
ReplyDeleteThe pendulum apparaently needs to swing even a little further until finally the people DEMAND change and accountability. I just hope it deosn't come too late.
But rest assured that this accomodation of the Adminstration only lays the seed for a worse revelation of illegal activity int he futre as Republican hubris gets even more self-assured.
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...
I agree that it's painfully 'Duuuuuuhhhhh' to you and I. I'm curious why it ISN'T 'Duuuuuuuuhhhhh' to so many.
ReplyDeleteyup -- guess I need to be "patient and tolerant" for the "kool-aiders" that are still recovering from the last binge and celebrate "progress, not perfection."
Perhaps we need to talk to "frame" the issues to the masses in this way -- but I would hope that on a blog like Glenn's we can encourage a more meaningful discussion.
It is time to quite say, "but this, but that, but this..."
It is time to look at the larger picture.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT INCOMPETENCE (to the military-industrial complex, chimpy and gang are EXTREMELY competent).
THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (the legislative and judicial branches had more than played along).
THIS IS NOT EVEN ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY (though they are doing the dirty work)
THIS IS ABOUT THE ENABLING THE ULTIMATE CONSUMABLE MARKET -- THE "WAR MACHINE" AND THE OBSCENE PROFITS FROM THE SAME GANG THAT BROUGHT US HITLER AND EVERY OTHER WAR SINCE THEN!
Anna -- yours is the most hopeful post I've read all day. Thanks ... I needed that.
ReplyDeleteAnother update on port deal:
ReplyDeleteSenator: UAE firm to transfer port operations to U.S. 'entity'
Sources: House, Senate leaders tell Bush deal appears dead
A United Arab Emirates-owned company has agreed to turn over all of its operations at U.S. ports to an American "entity," Sen. John Warner said Thursday.
Reading a statement from DP World on the Senate floor, Warner, a Virginia Republican, said the reason is "to preserve" the strong relationship between the UAE and United States.
The announcement comes after congressional leaders reportedly told President Bush that the deal for DP World to assume some operations at six U.S. ports appeared dead on Capitol Hill.
(and thanks for your reply to my anon post, peachkfc - I'm technically challenged this week!)
anonymous:
ReplyDelete"Yet the judges believed they did not have the authority to rule on the president's power to order the eavesdropping, government sources said, and focused instead on protecting the integrity of the FISA process."
From the WashPo article you linked.
It is obvious the top FISA judges believed they did not have the authority to overrule Bush.
Nonsense. They just can't unilaterally initiate a case against him. It takes two parties to make a lawsuit, and for obvious reasons, the presiding judges can't be one of them (this, FWIW, is somewhat different than the legal systems in some countries, IIRC, where the adversarial process is not such a bedrock of the judicial system, and where judges can and do take part in the investigation, questioning, etc.).
What they can (and did) do, is to make rules for their own courts. And in this case, they're trying to preserve the integrity of their own courts, as well as to try and prevent any taint in any cases that might come before them.
Cheers,
Don't they get it...?
ReplyDeleteWhen they've got Roberts and the self-anointed "moderates" whining -- their aim was TRUE!
It means the Democrats have hit the political BULLSEYE -- where it HURT the Republicans in question. They started to make them PAY for their sell-out, in a way that will hurt them at home, and in the media.
Oh, but Patrician Rockefeller doesn't want to damage or threaten the political futures of his esteemed, tryrannical colleagues now, does he..? Better apologize, in so many words, post haste! Must let the Republican Party continue to tyrannize our Legislative Branch of government to ensure that the abuses of their Executive Branch go unchecked. [You want Unanimous Consent, Majority Leader Frist?? By all means!]
You see, if he kept it up, the ONLY option for the Democrats in the Senate is a FILIBUSTER of this pathetic "legislation." And we've already seen Rockefeller show his true colors on the Police State Act, which REVISES FISA (why??). The LAST thing he (with Harry Reid probably right behind him) wants to lead is an OPPOSITION to the sickening displays he is an eyewitness to daily. [Carl Levin: PLEASE break ranks. You stood with Feingold and voted against the Police State Act. PLEASE stand up for our Legislative Branch of government.]
Lewis Lapham of Harper's Magazine pointed out the obvious:
The media thinks this country has two branches of government called the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. You might note that actually our Constitution created three co-equal branches of government named the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and the Legislative Branch.
Jay Rockefeller: You and every other Senator, regardless of Party, have a SWORN DUTY as members of the Legislative Branch to independently oversee, and thereby check and balance, the (out-of-control) Executive Branch. Period.
jeff myers:
ReplyDeleteThank God these incompetent fools were not at the helm during a period of true national crisis that actually threatened our very existence.
Ummm, wasn't quite what I was getting at. I'm not sure they would have been more extreme under such circumstances (but I have no doubt they would have been at least as incompetent, which would of course be a danger to our existence ... but a different one than I was talking about). I think they know quite well that there's no real "emergency" (witness the laughable "terrorist threat colour code" and its crude manipulation for political effect ... since abandoned for loss of effectiveness). They don't take the alleged "threat" seriously. It's just a tactic, an excuse. An excuse to consoldidate their own vision of a "proper gummint" ... one that has them in power as a one-party state of the privileged for a thousand year reign.
Cheers,
Speaking of cronyism, CNN reports Dubai has announced it is turning over the entire Port deal to an American company.
ReplyDeleteHalliburtan?
This bears close scrutiny, but I do want to point out in this increasingly alarming and infuriating climate in which we tragically find ourselves, one of the few bright spots is Glenn.
How can anyone not love someone who writes the first sentence of Glenn's post today?
I have always agreed with the book "The Death of Outrage" and I see it all around me in my personal life. Nobody cares. So when you see someone whose outrage is still intact, it's like an antidote to despair.
Finally, speaking of the disgusting Democrats, and the more I read, the more disgusting I find them, I was thinking to myself last night, you know what? I am going to cast protest votes from now on. I'll show them. I'll vote Republican.
And then I realized the enormity of the problem we face, when I would consider voting Republican to protest against these craven Democratic cowards.
Moving to a Greek Island becomes a more and more distinct possibility.
I mean, consider the following. Hillary Clinton supports Casey, a PRO LIFE candidate in PA, instead of the superb Democratic progressive who is running for that seat.
That candidate, Chuck somebody (complicated last name as I recall) has written a guest blog which VICHYDEMS links to. The guy sounds great. But Hillary can't support him because, well, I guess he's not a member of the power elite corrupt club. That's what it's come to. And Hillary has now says if we make it a crime to commit a crime (illegal aliens), we'd be a police state. She just noticed the police state whiff in the air, but she doesn't think it's because we have started the descent into fascism? She defines police state as a place where lawbreakers are punished for breaking the law?
Please, if anyone on this site would vote for Hillary Clinton for President, please let me know so I can scroll by your posts from now on, no offense.
Bush to Clinton. Clinton to Bush. Bush to Clinton. Who's she going slip the dirty money pocketbook to when she goes, Jeb Bush?
And they talk about dynasties....
Wonder if Bill Cat Killer's Blind Trust has stock in the company Dubai passed the Port deal to?
ReplyDeleteAlso, hear about the woman who was fired because her car had a sticker advertising AirAmerica radio?
See why it was so important for the Republifascists to stack the courts? Normally, the judicial would have been the last bastion of justice in a hijack situation like this, but they've become one of the hijackers.
ReplyDeleteNo Way Out. Is that really where we are?
Meanwhile, nobody seems to be noticing that Google and AT&T have been annointed to join the Secret Police Force, and are about to become another branch of government. And not a pretty one.
In the old days, other companies could emerge who would compete for the dollars of those who do not like to patronize fascist companies.
But those were the old days. Them's long gone....
PS. Al Franken focusing on the NSA matter right now.
Fluffers.
ReplyDeleteBush 41 was Fluffer #1.
Clinton was Fluffer #2.
When the film started rolling Bushco was the star, but those two were the fluffers.
And hypatia, how dare you say Reagan authorized Iran/Contra? How dare you? Just because he was man enough to take responsibility because it happened during his watch, there is overwhelming evidence he knew nothing about the Contra situation.
Reagan was no fluffer. But remember who was his Vice-President, working behind the scenes to start the fluffing operation which went into play the moment Bush41 took office.
Anyone watch 24? Jack Bauer spends more time fighting rogue factions in his own government than he does having to fight the enemies.
Reagan did well to bring down communism. He did all he could to contain the corrupt, fascist, neocon rogue element in his government (Bush et al) but he was only one man. Not God. He couldn't do everything.
"the Dog" said...
ReplyDelete"I think Glenn and all of you here are quite right about the national democratic leadership. They are the spineless, selfish, unprincipled personal power mongers, yet cowards about which Glenn regularly slings his mud a approbation.
They are not worthy of the intellectual giants like Glenn and his followers here.
Everyone here should do that which you decry so loudly the democrats in congress fail to do.
You should show your willingness to continue the good fight and denounce those democrats who do not support that which you advocate."
Divide and conquer eh Dog. The other day we were all Jackasses that had been outsmarted once again by the President.
Speaking of which, I just heard your master whistle for you. Better go see if he has another bone
If anyone is interested, there are two very comprensive articles about the Bush-NSA-Gop deal in regards to Impeachment that I found fascinating with many links throughout both articles.
ReplyDeleteyou can find them at patriotdaily.com
Read "Bush-Gop NSA deal may bar Impeachment?"
Read "Bush's self-pardon's preempt Impeachment?"
It suggests that the deal is not a "fix" to fisa but what amounts to a "pardon" by congress for Illegal actions.
eyes wide open -
ReplyDeleteThat would be Chuck Pennacchio, who is running for the Democratic primary nomination (the vote is on May 16th) to challenge Rick Santorum for his seat in the Senate.
Here's Chuck's website:
http://www.chuck2006.com/
P.S. All Hillary has going for her is national name recognition, as a former first lady. That, and a very low price for selling-out in exchange for more campaign cash. By the time the next Presidential election rolls around, we won't be able to recognize this country. Hillary will be hiding in a bunker somewhere with her fellow elites.
Jeff said.. It isn't just the Dems who have been battered by this administration. In many ways, this administration, whether through mailce or cataclysmic incompetence, has battered the American people as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThis has been true for a long time. Look who the wingers blame for crime, illiteracy, poverty, etc.: "Families". Who do they blame for childhood obesity, not the fastfood purveyors (with constance advertizing). Who do they blame for the "evils" of bankruptcy, not the practices of the financial services industry. You name it, and these folks blame ordinary American for all the country's ills.
But I digress....
Glenn said..
Personally, I think that what motivates Bush's recalcitrance on this issue more than anything else is his belief that national security is his domain, where he exercises unchallenged reign and resents any questioning or interference with his decision.
Personally I think what motivates Bush more than anything else is his firm belief in the superiority of his "class"; i.e. the wealthy, the world's movers and shakers. Remembers the comments of Bush's professor at Yale during the 2004 election. He said that while at Yale, Bush expressed utter distain for poor people, people of color, etc. Sounded just like his mama in Houston with the victims of Katrina. These folks think they are better, that they know more about how the world works, that by and large the American people deserve nothing more than a daily photo op while they get on with the business of big business.
Bush reserves his regard for people like the Saudi royal family and the ruler of Dubai. That's the people with whom Bush will "hold hands".
Glenn Greenwald said...
ReplyDelete"Is a tiny bit of oversight better than no oversight at all? Sure, in theory. Fine."
I don't think this even qualifies as a tiny bit of oversight Glen. This will be a Republican controlled subcommittee that will act as nothing more than a rubber stamp for the Presidents illegal spying. And the Democrats by joining it gives it the legitimacy the Republicans are looking for.
The situation appears quite clear. The illegal domestic spying operations (that go far beyond just the NSA illegal spying) has been used to spy on political opponents and potential opponents, ie, including Senators and House members. Of both parties.
ReplyDeleteThe deep reticence by the GOP leadership is simply a clear indication that Bushie has made it known to key individuals in the GOP that he has obtained "interesting" information of, at least, and embarrassing nature via the spying and that it would be a shame for that info to get out.
Rockerfeller has just recently had it made known to him that the spying operations have obtained "interesting" information on him as well.
Rockerfeller's cave-in is just his cowardice in the face of illegal spying picking up embarrassing information on him.
Not God. He couldn't do everything.
ReplyDeletewell, reagan was senile and braindead to....
Maybe that makes him a "great man" in your book....
Does anyone else remember the insane shit he used to say, like, "trees cause more polution than all the cars blah blah blah blah..."
Dubai Port Company to Divest Itself of American Holdings
ReplyDelete"Asks not for whom the bell tolls, its tolls for thee.." John Donne
Hey, do I hear a nail in a coffin. The company will be connected in some way to a) James Baker b) Chaney and/or c) some business with close ties to Republicans. Bets anyone, bets?
All Hillary has going for her is national name recognition, as a former first lady.
ReplyDeleteWell remember, she wouldn't blow her husband...
leading to the most famous stained blue dress in history.
Don't know why people think she can be a "service" to the people when she could not even "service" her husband...
The most "interesting information" about Jay Rockefeller is that he is actaully really John Rockeller IV-grandson of one of the largest "robber barrons" in world history.
ReplyDeleteThe family fortune comes from the war machine -- like chimpy's grandfather, financing hitler's rise to power and then financing the nazi war machine....
give me a break, this man was never going to lead the movement to free america from a facist that is doing the dirty work for the military industrial complex.
I am listening to Rep. S. Brown on AirAmerica. He actually sounds terrific, much better than that other guy, the war hawk in sheep's clothing, that all the progressive blogs seem to have preferred.
ReplyDeleteThis guy was against the Patriot Act, is incensed about the NSA scandal, etc.
He seems like exactly the kind of person we would want to support.
Isn't he?
Or is he a phony who is merely mouthing the words the AirAmerica audience wants to hear?
I do admit the fact that Schumer apparently was pushing this guy gives me pause.
Hey, do I hear a nail in a coffin. The company will be connected in some way to a) James Baker b) Chaney and/or c) some business with close ties to Republicans.
ReplyDeleteSubstitue MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX for REPUBLICANS and you have a BINGO!!!!
Sure, the two seem interchangable now, but remember, there are plenty of "hawk" dems that are part of that crowd too -- we need to talk about the actual problems, not the symptoms.
WHY WON'T ANYONE, INCLUDING GLENN AND THE REST OF THE BLOGOSPHERE TALK ABOUT THE NEED TO US DUBAI AS A STRATEGIC BASE FOR A WAR WITH IRAN!!!!!!
40% of the world's oils pass through the narrow strait between Iran and Dubai. IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN AND NOT HAVE ACCESS TO DUBAI!
Please, gang, look past the distractions and connect the dots...
40% of the world's oils pass through the narrow strait between Iran and Dubai.
ReplyDeleteThat would be the Strait of Hormuz and I agree with the Anonymous poster who is shouting this. These Bushies/military industrial complex folks want perpetual war. It's good for bidnez.
As one who hates the present Republicans and hates the present Democrats almost as much, I do agree, however, that the Divide and Separate trap is a real possibility, and serves no purpose.
ReplyDeleteIf this were all happening in the way it has played out a year ago, I would think there would have been time for the Patriots in this country to organize in such a fashion to insure the right Dems would win the primaries.
That's no longer possible.
But I can't help feeling that there is something that will work.
I don't know if it will play out in the judciary, or through impeachment, or some unexpected event happening that radically shifts the balance, but I suspect there may still be a way out.
Personally, unarmed as I am with sufficient facts to know what a solution to this whole mess might be, I leave it up to Glenn to figure it out.
I guess if he can't do it, nobody can.
I do believe that if it weren't for one man, Lou Dobbs, the Port deal would have gone through. Public opposition is not enough to stop this fascist juggernaut.
Lou Dobbs was.
That shows one man can be a stronger force than the whole Bushco/military industrial/usual suspects machine.
That man, of course, did have the public behind him. But those who didn't start out being passionate about the issue landed up being passionate after he led the way.
If a person emerges who can lead the way out of the whole big mess, it's going to be trickier, as the issues are more complex and hidden, and the initial public support is not as great.
But that doesn't mean it can't happen.
Thanks for the tip, Alex. I saved those articles on patriotdaily to read later.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said:
ReplyDelete"WHY WON'T ANYONE, INCLUDING GLENN AND THE REST OF THE BLOGOSPHERE TALK ABOUT THE NEED TO US DUBAI AS A STRATEGIC BASE FOR A WAR WITH IRAN!!!!!!
40% of the world's oils pass through the narrow strait between Iran and Dubai. IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN AND NOT HAVE ACCESS TO DUBAI!"
There won't be any war with Iran. Bush in his infinite wisdom matched only by his magnificent competence has already used up and broken the military in Iraq.
I'm sure he has dreams though of starting a war with Iran. As is evidenced by his spending billions to build 4 large PERMANENT bases in Iraq unbeknown to most of the public in the U.S.
Thank you midnightrider.
ReplyDeleteI will certainly be donating to Chuck Pennacchio's campaign.
Can someone fill me in? I don't know much about party politics. How much can one individual contribute to a candidate's campaign?
What if you want to give more? If you contribute to a PAC, that cannot be used for the campaign, can it?
I would really appreciate it if someone could give me a quick course in campaign donations.
Thanks.
CNN about to have a report on the Justice Department's statements on spying. This story seems like it might have important legs, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteAs is evidenced by his spending billions to build 4 large PERMANENT bases in Iraq unbeknown to most of the public in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
...and you think those bases will only support military action WITHIN iraq? don't be a fool...
Sure, the military has been seriously depleted, but that is the nature of war -- its the ultimate "consumable" market.
They can "replenish" what they need to start another war if they like and make BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS DOING IT.
Remember, they "go to war with the army they have, not the army they want.
Don't be a moron and proclaim they cannot fight a war with iran... the pieces are all in place and it will assure a perpetual war that will make money for the same crowd that brought hilter to power.
"Maybe that makes him a "great man" in your book...."
ReplyDeleteYes, I do think Reagan was a "great man" and more than that, I think he was one of the few best Presidents we ever had.
Since you are so quick to believe presposterous spin, I don't see how you will ever be an ally in any campaign which requires people to think, and evaluate, for themselves.
Brace yourselves. Gonzales coming up on CNN to talk about spying and torture. It's a little after five in New York now.
ReplyDeleteno question in my mind, they have damaging photos of Rockafeller getting a blow job by Gannon.
ReplyDeleteRonald Reagan was a self aggrandizing coward who doomed millions of Aids victims to misery and death. Furthermore, by enabling Bush, the smarter, to escape culpability for the Iranian arms for hostages crimes, he effectively doomed us all to the totalitarian regime in which we now live. Fuck Ronald Reagan. May the worms devour his moldy flesh, and may his soul wither in hell.
ReplyDeleteThought provoking post, David, (and I don’t mean to be picking on you since I agree with the vast majority of things you write), I’m just responding to ideas put forward that I find troublesome for the purposes of advancing the discussion.
ReplyDeleteAre there, or have there been, other, similar, surveillance programs implemented by the Bush Administration? I suspect we will learn this (or Congress will, anyway).
How will Congress learn this unless the administration decides to tell them, and why would they tell them? Clearly, I believe, there are programs that the administration does not want FISA or Congress to know about, or otherwise why would we find ourselves in the absurd position we find ourselves today?
To be clear, my own view is this: the domestic surveillance program is illegal and it should end immediately.
Clearly, there are illegal aspects to the program, but that does not mean we can’t monitor phone calls from suspected terrorists, framing it this way is a non-starter. I think we need to separate the two. (You are giving the administration the straw man they want to condemn any oversight or compliance with the law.)
If the program violates FISA, which it plainly does, it must end unless and until it is made compliant. My further opinion is that President Bush has committed Federal crimes and he should be impeached and removed from office.
a) Making it compliant is quite simple isn’t it? Follow the law, and submit requests for wiretaps to the FISA court. Stress this point.
Why should you talk about ending it, instead of insisting that the administration follow the law? Again, you’re falling into the trap set up by Bush’s rhetoric about “wanting to know if you’re talking to Osama” or not monitoring at all.
b) I agree with Glenn on impeachment, it is premature, we don’t have the votes, and the talk of it (although I’d love to see it and endorse it) distracts from actually making the case for impeachment. In other words, “we aren’t there yet.”
The actual operation of the program and all crucial decisions concerning it remain firmly in the hands of the President.
I think you’re conceding too much. Where is the role for oversight of the FISA Court or Congress? Have you given upon the idea that a program may be challenged and have to be scaled back or revised by either?
Moderate Republicans like Snowe and Hagel can say, with superficial plausibly at this point, that the increased oversight and disclosures may lead to additional Congressional investigation, but that is all speculation right now. And without formal inquiry into the practices to date, it is difficult to see how such historical abuses will be uncovered
Very true. I can’t agree with you more on this point.
On the other hand, I do believe that the attention directed at the program to date, in conjunction with the additional Congressional oversight, will make it increasingly likely that other surveillance programs, should they exist, will be uncovered.
I’m not so sure about this, not if the administration controls what they know, and can control what they see. What power do they have to investigate what the administration is doing without an investigation?
In short, unless some significant abuse surfaces, the Bush Administration is very likely to get a pass for its illegal surveillance, and the program will continue to operate more or less unchanged.
That looks like the way things are headed, I’ll admit, but there’s also many more opportunities for abuses to surface, this is a long way from being over.
Reagan was a great President for those who don't know history.
ReplyDeleteSince you are so quick to believe presposterous spin, I don't see how you will ever be an ally in any campaign which requires people to think, and evaluate, for themselves.
ReplyDeleteWell, if you don't know that reagan uttered some of the most stupid statements by any U.S. president, check the record.
... not that you will let facts get in the way.
The insane things ronnie used to say started an entire publishing genre...
But ask a librarian to look 'em up for you, since you seem to proclaim you are the "expert" on being open minded.
Small minded people like you are not actually going to lead anything either -- you don't know the facts, refuse to look at anything but the "talking points," and then attack anyone that has more information than you.
Thanks
Regan wasn't a great president. He was and still is an inspirational figure for the hordes of warped, deluded nitwits who are wrecking our country today
ReplyDeleteSpot on, too bad the family wouldn't let chimpy wrap himself in the arms of the dead bodie and proclaim that "all is right" in america.
I am still waiting for them to put the man that "proved deficits don't matter" while running on a platform of balancing the budget on a $2 dollar bill.
All reagan proved is that the republican's are a scam and that it would take a democrate to restore some sanity to the federal budget again.
Personally, would love to see ronald's face carved into a pile of shit near Mt. Rushmore.
ReplyDeleteommzms.
ReplyDeleteTerrific post.
Also, thanks to David Shaugnessy for his usual, insightful and thoughtful analysis of key points.
Also, aren't the Rockefellers part of the Tri-Lateral group with connections to the Carlye group?
Remember all those "conspiracy nuts" everyone used to deride in the mid to late 90's?
Maybe they weren't nuts? Maybe there were the real patriots of their day?
Maybe we have to go back and revisit all those things they wrote.
In their own way, they seem to have had almost as much ability to predict the future as George Orwell.
In the old days, it used to be called the "Rockefeller Bush" divison of the Republican Party.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAs is evidenced by his spending billions to build 4 large PERMANENT bases in Iraq unbeknown to most of the public in the U.S.
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
...and you think those bases will only support military action WITHIN iraq? don't be a fool..
If your going to critisize me you should at least take the time to read what I said, not what you think I said.
I said: I'm sure Bush has dreams of going to war with Iran which is evidenced by the fact that he is building 4 PERMANENT bases in Iraq.
""Sure, the military has been seriously depleted, but that is the nature of war -- its the ultimate "consumable" market.
They can "replenish" what they need to start another war if they like and make BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS DOING IT.
Remember, they "go to war with the army they have, not the army they want.""
That little party is just about over. The U.S. is broke. 8 trillion dollars in debt, and having to borrow money every day to finance the little incursions we are involved in now in Iraq and Afghanistan. I guess the Gov could print more money but that just leads to rampant inflation which makes it worthless anyway.
Iran holds all the aces in the deck right now. Neither China nor Russia will back a security resolution to go to war against Iran and they both sit on the U.N. security council. No resolution means no coalition.
Russia has economic ties with Iran and China would like nothing more than to lock up more secure oil supplies for itself by siding with the Iranians.
And Iran itself; oil supplies are constrained enough that if they decided to quit exporting oil the price would go theough the roof. Not to mention the fact that Iran borders both Iraq and Afghanistan. They have the very real ability to make mischief in both places where we are already bogged down by sending in some troops to make trouble.
And last but not least, Iran is a bigger country both geographically and population wise than Iraq. Where do you think we are going to get the troops to fight there when we have trouble maintaining 138,000 in Iraq? If Bush is stupid enough he might try doing a surgical air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities but I guarantee you it won't be possible to do any more than that. And if he is stupid enough to do that read again the aces Iran holds.
Besides, what is Bush gonna do, drum up patriotic fervor by claiming that Iran has WMD's? I think he shot that wad on Iraq.mhp
Besides, what is Bush gonna do, drum up patriotic fervor by claiming that Iran has WMD's? I think he shot that wad on Iraq.mhp
ReplyDeleteWhile you bring up valid points -- are you saying that he cannot or will not start a war in Iran?
There is too much money to be made and trying will enable them to fully dismantle S.S. Once he commits as a reckless military act and gets us bogged down, do you think they will stop becuase of financial reasons when the military industrial complex is making money hands over fists?
Get real -- there is the draft and the chimpy would would just love to walk away from Social Security. He has already gone around the coutnry proclaiming there is no trust fund...
After repug victories in 2006 (by hook or by crook), they will proclaim to have a MANDATE to eliminate Social Security (even though none of the cowards will run on a platform that says this).
The war will either be the rallying point BEFORE the election or what they will do to distract from massive vote fraud AFTER the election.
Remember, chimpy proclaimed he "hit the trifecta" after 9/11 when the country was not ready to accept an illegitimate pResident.
Linking to Glenn at Slate - Orwell Would Be Proud: Congress caves on wiretapping.
ReplyDeleteUPDATE: The New York Times editorial page is one of the very few journalistic corners which understands the true magnitude of this scandal...
ReplyDeleteYou mean the true magnitude of their own criminal liability. The other media outlets who did not act as al Qaeda moles already have this story buried on page 8.
...and today published an excellent editorial which included this:
The Senate Judiciary Committee is still looking into the wiretapping. That committee should have plenty of incentive to go forward — its chairman, Senator Arlen Specter, was righteously angry when he received a letter in which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales implied that there was more warrantless spying we don't know about. Mr. Gonzales won't even say that Mr. Bush understands it is blatantly illegal to spy on communications within the United States without a warrant. Nevertheless, there's not much cause for hope: Mr. Specter has a sad habit of bowing to the right wing when the chips are down.
There are moments when leaders simply have to take a stand. It seems to us that one of them is when Americans are in danger of the kind of unchecked surveillance that they thought had died with J. Edgar Hoover, Watergate and spying on Vietnam protesters and civil rights leaders.
I await a single scintilla of evidence to support this hysterical slander.
Unless the NYT is tried in Vermont, somehow I don't see this "legal argument" working in front of a jury....
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteThere's just a tone deafness in Washington. They don't recognize just how corrupt these actions are and how furious and disgusted so many Americans are as a result.
Are you serious?
The Dems are acting exactly the way their pollsters are telling them to act.
The NSA Program has about 75% support, so the Dems are ducking for cover.
In contrast, the Dubai Ports deal had 25% support and ol Cash n Carry Harry Reid was demanding a Senate vote on the deal after Dubai Ports already announced that they were dropping all their US contracts.
National Security is completely political to the Dems. They would sell off NYC to al Qaeda if they thought the polls would support it.
This would almost be amusing if it weren't so...
ReplyDeleteSorry, words just fail here.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteyankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteThis would almost be amusing if it weren't so...
Sorry, words just fail here.
Sorry, but I am in a foul mood and have very little tolerance for leftwingnut hypocrisy today...
I spent this morning listening to a liberal federal district judge, who shall remain unnamed, lecture a room full of trial attorneys on the morals of rhetoric and the necessity for civility among attorneys...
Then this esteemed jurist decided to add some levity to the proceedings by speculating whether Texans had opposable digits and Kansans had the mental acuity to learn science.
I was on the edge of my seat ready to forfeit my law license and tell this man to fark himself.
gee Bart the Monarchist, why is Bush-Nero at 34%?
ReplyDeleteSpecter is a coward, he refused to have Gonzalez swown in at the Judiciary Committee.
Gris Lobo - who says King George is sending the Army into Iran? instead he will send in the Air Force. He WILL attack Iran before Election Day.
hell, just pass the Enabling Act and get it over with already
The only logical explanation, in my opinion, for the Bush administration’s secret warrentless monitoring of American citizens having “contact” with “terrorists” overseas, is if first, both sides are simply defined as opponents of the Bush regime, and then contact is defined as any link between them, which could mean just surfing a web page from Aljazeera, or Googling a term like “Fallugah.” In doing so, Americans have “combined, conspired, and agreed with foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States,” those interests being determined solely by the commander in chief in wartime, Monkey Boy.
ReplyDeleteWe’d be foolish not to assume every key stroke and e-mail is cached, and revel in the transparency, since we see where secrecy is taking them. I’d estimate about 500,000 dossiers have been created on suspect Americans, but that number might be just a failure of imagination. These disloyal citizens will be interned in already-funded Halliburton camps, curfewed under martial law, electronically or chemically monitored or controlled, or far, far, worse.
All we need now is some galvanizing event, like bird flu, then, toodles!
Bart, resident "copy and paste" troll with off-topic talking points said:
ReplyDeleteAliquam a ligula. Donec volutpat erat vel pede. Donec dui. Donec elementum. Donec vel ipsum non pede condimentum sollicitudin. Fusce cursus. Proin non elit ac tellus consequat scelerisque. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Nam a sapien vitae orci porttitor consectetuer. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Ut vitae diam. Integer tellus purus, dapibus ut, interdum sed, pharetra eget, nulla. Nam commodo dictum augue. Donec nisl massa, consequat eu, euismod quis, tempor quis, enim. Nam et urna. Mauris vel augue nec lacus facilisis semper. Maecenas leo nibh, feugiat sed, dictum eget, scelerisque non, erat. Curabitur ante.
Nunc blandit arcu vitae magna. Fusce nec urna. Donec convallis quam id mi. Vestibulum varius. Suspendisse pede nunc, ultrices a, malesuada non, consectetuer eget, orci. Cras pretium. Donec pretium metus sagittis ipsum. Nunc nonummy enim vitae sapien. Maecenas tristique auctor massa. In sed tellus. Curabitur non turpis id tellus adipiscing faucibus. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Nunc et leo.
Nulla tincidunt tincidunt enim. Cras dolor. Sed laoreet lectus tincidunt orci. Proin enim nisi, vehicula a, consequat at, tempus non, nulla. Donec elementum euismod augue. Suspendisse est mauris, sollicitudin ac, fermentum id, consectetuer nec, lacus. Donec convallis volutpat nunc. Aliquam ac purus sit amet nisl sagittis ultrices. Cras rutrum, justo sed ultricies ultrices, odio arcu mollis nulla, vitae nonummy dui enim ac nunc. Praesent varius pede eu felis. Sed faucibus metus non sem.
Nam scelerisque pharetra velit. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos. Donec ullamcorper, tortor vel luctus laoreet, mauris purus pulvinar sapien, sed convallis massa massa id mauris. Quisque non nisi eget neque porttitor commodo. Sed massa dolor, mollis sed, venenatis accumsan, fringilla sodales, odio. Praesent adipiscing est a eros pulvinar euismod. Nullam consectetuer, massa vitae rhoncus vestibulum, turpis ante tempor dui, sed pellentesque odio erat in magna. Cras tincidunt nisl sit amet tellus. Donec laoreet est vitae diam. Integer ut diam vitae purus dapibus convallis. Quisque interdum aliquet velit. Nullam suscipit auctor purus. Duis ultricies justo id massa. Aenean consequat orci ac felis. Cras felis turpis, vehicula vel, dignissim ac, sodales in, metus.
Nullam vitae ante vel quam suscipit tempus. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos. Duis tempus pede eget massa accumsan mattis. Fusce semper. Maecenas scelerisque. Mauris congue augue vel arcu sollicitudin vulputate. Suspendisse sed massa eu tellus ullamcorper tempus. Nullam nonummy diam in metus. Sed mi. Nullam vel urna. Sed mollis sodales lectus. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec mattis, leo sed tempor vestibulum, nisi ante aliquet nibh, vitae tristique tellus nisi id augue. Aliquam enim felis, euismod nec, porttitor sed, fermentum sed, sem. Suspendisse convallis.
Aenean magna. Vivamus at lacus nec erat varius laoreet. Vivamus blandit, leo id dignissim laoreet, risus elit accumsan mauris, eget sodales orci arcu pharetra sapien. Donec mollis vehicula metus. Donec lacus. Vestibulum id justo quis metus suscipit pretium. Vivamus gravida, nisl et euismod aliquam, purus dolor vestibulum erat, quis condimentum dui odio ullamcorper lorem. Cras posuere, dui at venenatis vehicula, diam risus commodo est, eget posuere velit sapien id tortor. Sed lacus nunc, feugiat nec, mollis id, suscipit ut, magna. Maecenas dolor felis, hendrerit eu, ullamcorper ac, malesuada a, turpis. Etiam nonummy, libero eu pretium dapibus, tellus purus dictum metus, eu ultrices arcu erat quis ipsum.
Praesent leo arcu, facilisis in, sollicitudin eget, sollicitudin id, lectus. Phasellus consectetuer ipsum sed est. Suspendisse posuere, augue id imperdiet suscipit, enim ligula adipiscing metus, quis egestas metus diam ut nisl. Donec aliquam. Nullam euismod lobortis mi. Duis laoreet suscipit nisi. Vivamus vitae arcu. In vitae est. Vivamus leo. Nulla viverra.
Praesent nec erat id nisi mattis tristique. Pellentesque non nisl nec nibh eleifend hendrerit. Quisque vitae erat. Proin ac ligula ac neque mollis tempus. Nullam id justo. Etiam imperdiet. Vivamus tristique, mi et congue ultricies, sapien mi posuere tortor, eget eleifend mauris tortor sollicitudin elit. Donec facilisis neque in tellus. Duis eget nisi. Sed ut lorem. Sed mattis fringilla augue. Praesent elementum consectetuer enim. Fusce dapibus. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Phasellus euismod risus id nibh.
Curabitur ipsum urna, fringilla semper, iaculis eu, cursus vitae, est. Duis aliquet pulvinar turpis. Curabitur euismod, velit nec rutrum laoreet, nulla nibh condimentum diam, at sollicitudin lectus leo ut diam. Aenean nonummy, quam in fermentum mollis, metus erat luctus nulla, fermentum imperdiet orci diam et nibh. Donec ac purus at ante fermentum ultrices. Nunc nec ante sed felis commodo scelerisque. Donec ac pede. Nunc accumsan accumsan urna. Nullam velit justo, fermentum non, viverra id, venenatis vel, pede. Quisque eu nibh. Cras diam eros, pellentesque faucibus, tempus eu, ornare at, arcu.
Proin turpis mi, egestas eu, pharetra ut, auctor sed, enim. Donec sed urna. Integer a dui. Quisque tortor dui, tincidunt nec, dictum id, auctor nec, dui. Nullam aliquet, eros quis fermentum tincidunt, urna tortor vestibulum neque, eu mattis nisl velit non orci. Proin elit sem, molestie quis, ullamcorper ac, iaculis at, nunc. Aenean neque. Ut viverra placerat risus. Aenean vel lacus nec erat auctor posuere. Nullam semper faucibus mi. Quisque eu quam. Morbi in nulla. Sed eleifend, dui eu interdum pulvinar, libero libero aliquam nulla, vel eleifend augue ipsum eget odio. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Curabitur ut quam a lacus congue molestie.
Curabitur et justo. Praesent vehicula venenatis urna. Cras suscipit. Phasellus euismod porttitor enim. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Curabitur scelerisque nibh eu augue. Donec vitae erat. Proin ut lectus nec neque mattis malesuada. Praesent sapien risus, rutrum eu, sagittis sed, luctus in, velit. Fusce consectetuer leo id turpis. Donec egestas sem vitae dui. Phasellus lobortis ultrices risus. Vestibulum porttitor. Pellentesque mattis justo nec nulla. Duis ultricies, ipsum eu bibendum pellentesque, dui leo venenatis enim, eu adipiscing sem ligula in neque. Mauris odio nisl, facilisis bibendum, ultricies sed, accumsan nec, est.
Aenean quis lorem. Duis porttitor vestibulum magna. Cras ut neque. Aenean blandit nonummy pede. Donec sed orci vitae arcu pellentesque fringilla. Phasellus rhoncus, odio a ornare euismod, lacus orci mattis felis, sit amet vestibulum lacus libero eget leo. Sed accumsan erat pharetra est. Nullam non velit et lacus semper tristique. Sed fringilla mauris at est. Sed a lorem quis nisi luctus vehicula.
Phasellus eu eros sit amet nisl blandit vestibulum. Nunc posuere libero eu sem. Nulla porttitor quam a est. Vivamus et lorem. Maecenas vel diam pharetra mauris consequat tempor. Integer adipiscing. Mauris vitae augue eget urna rhoncus laoreet. Sed ut neque. Nulla fringilla. Sed est turpis, congue ut, dignissim eu, congue ut, eros. Donec facilisis, lorem id elementum blandit, ligula quam porttitor dui, eu elementum risus nisi in neque. Mauris nec massa.
Aenean dictum magna a lectus. Sed ornare ligula quis turpis. Mauris sit amet lacus quis est varius semper. Maecenas elementum laoreet neque. Duis adipiscing lacus. Maecenas vel elit. Sed lacus. Fusce id odio. Nullam id eros at nisi laoreet semper. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Nunc fermentum. Suspendisse nisi odio, facilisis at, consectetuer ac, iaculis non, ipsum. Donec fermentum, magna vestibulum sagittis pharetra, tortor leo tristique justo, in molestie purus pede non nunc. Maecenas pretium placerat sapien. Sed ut quam. Vivamus iaculis. Fusce lorem enim, lacinia vel, semper at, tincidunt nec, risus. Suspendisse lectus ligula, rhoncus eu, nonummy vitae, aliquet nonummy, nulla. Mauris sodales est at tortor.
Curabitur semper tellus non ipsum. Pellentesque purus lacus, mollis sed, porttitor rutrum, gravida vitae, dui. Phasellus sed neque. Mauris at mauris. Vestibulum pharetra quam et urna. Nulla risus diam, facilisis quis, congue nec, laoreet et, ligula. Mauris lacus sem, dapibus eu, malesuada tincidunt, sagittis et, nunc. Curabitur pretium massa a justo. Suspendisse potenti. Mauris mattis est nec est. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Morbi vehicula. Suspendisse potenti. Fusce vestibulum erat vestibulum magna porttitor faucibus. Morbi nunc nisi, scelerisque ut, hendrerit at, fermentum et, lectus.
Maecenas vel ipsum. Nunc velit. Donec ut nisi. Duis eget sem ut mauris blandit nonummy. Nam tempus, urna ac tincidunt volutpat, mauris tellus euismod nulla, at volutpat pede libero vel diam. Quisque urna. Curabitur eros mi, ultricies in, pharetra sed, consequat laoreet, nulla. Nullam sit amet nulla. Nunc erat quam, euismod vitae, gravida quis, ornare vel, nulla. Donec pharetra, arcu ut tincidunt placerat, arcu mi ullamcorper orci, et condimentum tortor erat in risus. Donec libero lacus, bibendum vitae, ornare in, gravida vitae, pede.
Maecenas id nisl ac diam malesuada mattis. Nunc libero leo, fringilla vel, aliquam eu, vestibulum eget, ante. Cras varius viverra dui. Vestibulum dui. Nam tempus, quam ut nonummy hendrerit, nisi sem dignissim velit, eu ultrices elit est vitae massa. In ultrices ornare est. Mauris at nulla quis dui consequat tempus. Suspendisse faucibus. Aliquam vitae nulla. Aenean rutrum tortor eget leo. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Nullam consectetuer. Proin interdum enim ac sapien. In cursus velit sed libero.
Duis sem. Pellentesque lacinia leo at dolor. Fusce sagittis urna luctus nisi. Etiam et arcu eget lectus varius ultrices. Aliquam porttitor. Donec sapien. Vivamus tincidunt leo. Aliquam erat volutpat. Suspendisse hendrerit mollis nunc. Pellentesque dapibus enim vitae justo. Fusce luctus commodo tellus. Phasellus tempus suscipit arcu. Cras at nibh ut metus elementum viverra. Quisque tempor, tortor sit amet luctus nonummy, erat odio commodo libero, non nonummy lacus neque sed libero. Phasellus vestibulum elementum magna. Nulla ligula mauris, venenatis et, scelerisque nec, tempus ut, purus. Proin malesuada laoreet justo. Mauris sagittis magna vel est. Donec molestie.
Donec dui nisi, sollicitudin ut, venenatis quis, scelerisque quis, sapien. Etiam tempus porttitor justo. Etiam auctor nunc ac ante. Mauris ultricies aliquam quam. Aliquam congue consequat odio. Nullam a mi. Integer eget pede. Nulla nec nisl a diam posuere fringilla. Nam laoreet felis ac nibh. Pellentesque nibh. Donec facilisis purus sit amet nulla. Nulla nec lacus ut mauris viverra hendrerit. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Aenean convallis. Maecenas at odio eget eros fermentum adipiscing. Aliquam feugiat diam vitae sem. Suspendisse lacus ante, vehicula sit amet, mattis eget, mollis et, leo. Fusce sed mi. Quisque blandit lorem ut mi pretium pharetra. Quisque et risus.
Proin congue odio at lectus. Quisque ut nibh. Aliquam eu eros vitae metus tincidunt consectetuer. Aenean eu felis. In laoreet eros at tortor. In lobortis, nibh sit amet sagittis consequat, magna odio interdum dolor, a convallis enim tellus a dui. Nullam elit enim, auctor et, consequat ut, mollis nec, elit. Aliquam sit amet pede id lacus venenatis lobortis. Aliquam velit metus, cursus et, facilisis ac, laoreet id, justo. Morbi eu est. Suspendisse potenti. Duis non leo. Proin volutpat feugiat purus. Suspendisse potenti.
Cras mattis, lectus ut vestibulum adipiscing, leo justo egestas leo, non placerat magna eros in massa. Curabitur volutpat, erat eget tempor mollis, eros ligula vulputate erat, in egestas libero elit nec purus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Morbi sit amet elit non augue posuere porta. Suspendisse a enim vel metus ornare vestibulum. Mauris tincidunt pretium libero. Morbi vulputate interdum risus. Nam id quam. Mauris massa. Mauris aliquet interdum purus. Donec erat eros, tempor sit amet, tempus vitae, tempor eu, lacus. Curabitur quam metus, posuere sagittis, scelerisque nec, sagittis non, est. Ut convallis turpis vitae lectus.
Maecenas lacus nulla, ultricies et, sodales sit amet, condimentum ut, ante. Cras varius fringilla elit. Sed convallis. Nulla in elit et justo tristique elementum. Fusce eros ante, convallis et, venenatis nec, porta a, risus. Donec eu quam et quam dapibus dictum. Curabitur auctor scelerisque velit. Suspendisse pellentesque gravida nibh. In tortor velit, consectetuer non, rutrum sed, condimentum nec, tortor. Vivamus id pede. In aliquet velit at ipsum.
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
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"While you bring up valid points -- are you saying that he cannot or will not start a war in Iran?"
I don't discount Bush trying to do anything. He has already shown that he will or will at least try anything. Like the Blues Brothers he is on a mission from God, at least he is in his own mind.
But there are several reasons why I think he either won't or won't be successful if he tries.
Some I already gave you in the other post. Included with that there is the fact that elections are coming in the fall. The public is already sick of the war in Iraq. I saw a poll the other day that showed only a 20% appproval rating of the way he has handled the war there. Till November it would be political suicide to try to start another war. Even after that I think he will have a hard time drumming up enough support for another adventure in Congress or with the public. And as much as he likes the idea of a unitary (dictatorship) presidency I don't think even he has the juevos to start a war all by himself.
As for a draft, 8,000 troops have already deserted during the Iraq war, ours, not Iraqis. I see massive draft card burnings and mass immigration to Canada if he does that.
Do I think he would start a war with Iran if the Iraqi war had been the cakewalk he envisioned? Yup. But he miscalculated there and I just don't see the congress or the people supporting him in another one. Don't forget that Iraq is far from over. There is a very real danger right now in fact that if civil war breaks out in Iraq that they would turn against our troops and we might have a massacre on our hands before we could get them out of there. 138,000 against 25 million is not good odds even if you are well equiped and trained.
I also think if he did try to start another one on his own that that might be the one thing that would bring even a Republican Congress to the point of impeaching him.
The only exception to all of this would be if there were another terrorist attack on a scale as big or bigger than 9/11 that could be without a doubt tied to the Iranians. And I don't think that is going to happen.
BTW Hugo Chavez has met with the Iranian president and I'd be willing to bet that there is a pact that if the U.S. attacks either of them that they will both stop exporting oil.
The bottom line to all this is that the U.S. has given away the store with free trade used as a diplomacy tool. We are not the super power we were in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. And it would be wise for our government to quit trying to act like one. On the world stage we have relegated ourselves to a status not far above France in importance.
Gay Veteran said...
ReplyDeleteGris Lobo - who says King George is sending the Army into Iran? instead he will send in the Air Force. He WILL attack Iran before Election Day.
I don't think he will, but if he does it will be a disaster for the reasons I pointed out in my post.
Bart:
ReplyDeleteYou mean the true magnitude of their own criminal liability. The other media outlets who did not act as al Qaeda moles already have this story buried on page 8.
I get a kick out of Bart saying that the NYT reporters are "al Qaeda moles" and
that they are going to jail because they have damaged "domestic security." Justice Powell in the US vs US District Court case gave an opinion that lead to a perfect 8-zip decision (one justice not considering the case) which talks about this mind set that the right (and bart)
have towards those who don't agree with their views on national security.
To quote:
History abundantly documents the tendency of Government - however benevolent and benign its motives - to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. Senator Hart addressed this dilemma in the floor debate on 2511 (3):
"As I read it - and this is my fear - we are saying that the President, on his motion, could declare - name your favorite poison - draft dodgers, Black Muslims, the Ku Klux Klan, or civil rights activists to be a clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government."
The truth in this opinion rings like a gold plated bell because people, and especially the ones in power, are suspicious with the opposition's patriotism. This the game that the right has played with Iraq, i.e. that anyone who doesn't support it "underminds" the war effort. Bart takes this to a legal level and wants to criminally prosecute on the "vague concept" of "national security."
This mindset is what the whole Wilson/Plame thing is about. Wilson, who was involved in the gathering of information about Iraq, comes out with a book critical of the adminstration and the administration reacts to it be leaking info to discredit him so the policy doesn't get undermined any more. The internal justification is that Wilson had to be discredited in the name "security" interests. Cheney might have found some executive order loophole to keep himself out of court on this, but the political intent on his leak is obvious and makes Justice Powell's judical wisdom burn brighter.
I'm wondering what is going to come out in the press now that it is apparent that the Republican Congress isn't going to do anything more than a cosmetic investigation into what the NSA is up to.
What happens for now on depends on what the press knows about what is going on inside the NSA. Which is probably why bart has been turning up his heat on the "al Qaeda moles."
As the Powell opinion says: "to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies"
Maecenas id nisl ac diam malesuada mattis.
It is cute when you post the latin translation of bart, but it might be better if you post the text of Powell's opinion in the landmark court decision which realligned how governmental agencies spy to the original intent of the 4th amendment. Gotta give him some text.
OT, but:
ReplyDeleteFroomkin asks Do the American people support a tyrant in the White House? You can answer at the Post site here. And he'll publish some of them.
(Remember, this is Froomkin, not Lil Debbie, so use your indoor voices).
By the ACLU or someone with 'standing' to determine if it's Constitutional or not?
ReplyDeletewell, I hope they do, but let's not fool ourselves. SCOTUS decided you can't tell who wins an election by counting the votes in 2000. Chimpy has added 2 more hacks....
What outcome are you willing to bet the farm on?
Glenn, to the extent that you view this statement as conciliatory, what is your perception that it's an enforced civility? That is, we all know for starters that the Senate is the genteel house of Congress, and these people have to work with each other every day, so there's a certain amount of politesse that accompanies any communication.
ReplyDeleteMy own reading is that if it's conciliatory (and I agree that the "step in the right direction" phrasing is essentially that -- it should have been accompanied by something like "deeply inadequate" or even "borderline unconstitutional", for starters), do you read this as having been coerced? That is, we know that they discussed this whole solution essentially without bringing the Democratic members in on it -- "You don't know how hard we [i.e. the GOP caucus] worked on this" -- and we know that Frist has threatened stripping the committee of some of its unique rules if it doesn't play ball -- so is it possible that Rockefeller was told they'd pull the rug out from under him in some fashion if he didn't do the same?
After all, that's what they do to their own membership. People like Snowe must have been given a major cold shower about the help they'd receive from the national party in their next election.
Moving on from this point, the language of the last half of the letter seems to imply that Rockefeller is demanding that the administration play a little ball itself -- answer his questions, supply the committee with sufficient oversight information, and so forth.
So is it possible that the letter is public code for a cloakroom agreement where he gets some of that oversight as long as he lays off the yelling? I say this not because I'm interested in exonerating Rockefeller from anything, but because I have the sense that Washington, which on good days is sausage-making, is looking more like, oh, Australian rules football nowadays.
Rockefeller doesn't see the issue.
ReplyDeleteRockefeller is simply missing the point: It's not just the individuals in power, but it's the very system within the Constitution that permits the abuse and violations to go unsanctioned.
The problem is the current system fails to compel what must be done: Protect our rights, and prevent the abuses.
The way forward is to lawfully revoke the power that is abused.
There is a solution: [ Click ]
They way forward is to have a Constitutional Convention to discuss the problems and the solutions to the self-evident problem: This Federal Government and Constitution have failed to protect our rights and prevent abuse of power.
We need to discuss what is to be done: Which powers must be lawfully revoked to protect our rights and prevent this abuse.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI left a comment at the tail of the previous thread concerning the EPIC lawsuit.
That what got released is but the tip of the iceberg, and reading the DoJ's last minute motion for relief from transparency in government and an informed electorate is dumbfounding.
Comments?
Thoughts?
Justin Webb, the BBC's Washington correspondent, said it was unclear whether the deal would result in DPW forfeiting ownership of the ports in question, but if that was the case, the issue would be settled.
ReplyDeleteDPW's statement added that the decision was "based on an understanding that DP World will have time to affect the transfer in an orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic loss".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4791512.stm
UNDERSTAND THIS…
The DPW acquisition of the US port operations has ALREADY OCCURRED. THE DEAL HAPPENED. GET IT?
All of this dog and pony show is just a charade. The Congress was supposed to conduct a 45 day investigation BEFORE allowing the deal to close. IT ALREADY CLOSED.
THIS IS ALL JUST BULLSHIT ROVIAN SPIN.
THE DEAL IS DONE.
John Snow made his millions and a lot of other Bush Administration representatives received their bribes and Carlyle made their money and the transaction broker made their money…IT’S A DONE DEAL.
They broke the law and got away with it…AGAIN.
If the committee republicans were pouting over Rockefeller's remarks, I don't suppose they were ecstatic when I emailed everyone on the committee and said the ones who voted against an investigation were "snivelling, cowardly traitors."
ReplyDeleteIf the shoe fits, wear it, you fucking traitors. Get used to standing in the soup line and picking up clothes for your kids at Goodwill, because you'll be out of jobs within a year.
Others probably already have touched on this, but I believe it's no accident that officials resolved the port issue one day after Bush gets his way with the eavesdropping program. The GOP looks like it went toe to toe with Bush on an unpopular, high-profile issue, and 'won.' And knowing the news media - particularly broadcasters - they'll focus on the ports story because it's easier to understand. They'll highlight ad nauseum how the GOP 'broke ranks' with the Preznit on this issue, and how the White House backed down after intense pressure from within his own party. (Oh, and Democrats opposed it, too, and their opposition helped galvanize the GOP 'contrarians.' But never mind that.) Boy, that GOP is tough on national security issues, unafraid to stand their ground, reporters and anchors will gush. But warrantless eavesdropping? Wow, that's kind of complex with all them legal and constitutional facts, so lets just forget it.
ReplyDeleteWHY DEMOCRATS DON'T (AND CAN'T) WIN ELECTIONS
ReplyDeleteWhy does the Democratic Party keep losing elections when they are on them right side of every issue that the public identifies with in the endless polls taken?
They have become, for the most part, cowards seemingly without the courage or principles or the conviction to fight for what is right. The minute Harry Reid invoked the rule to bring the Seenot to a screeching halt until we got answers on the intelligence about Iraq, and then caved utterly and broke his promise, the image of gutless, unprincipled Democrats was again reaffirmed and reinforced the belief that we are bumbling cowards, with no more integrity than Republicans. And if we are viewed to be the same as the sycophantic, morally corrupt, and morally bankrupt Republicans, take a wild guess which party is going to get its ass kicked again in 2006 and 2008.
This is, I know, a sweeping, generalized, and very harsh judgment, but it is deserved. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary, Rahm, and others who want to be “nice” and go along to get along should look up the word nice. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (the definitive dictionary of the English language), the original meaning of the word “nice” was “idiot”, a perfect definition for a party that has lost the will, knowledge, courage, and conviction that makes people vote for a Democrat; they no longer know how to win elections.
We ARE on the right side of every issue, but we appear to be just “Republican Lite” because we don’t fight tooth and nail, no-holds-barred, Texas-style, fight to the finish with a nine month time limit to the 2006 elections.
Given the nature of the House of Unrepentant, its rules, and the fact that Democrats have been so beaten down and demoralized that they are just Hastert’s bitch, there is no hope of accomplishing anything there. We look like idiots when we hold solitary hearings in a just-like-your-high school-cafeteria setting. People see it as the genuine sign of weakness it is and they are not going to vote for weak, impotent idiots.
The Seenot is a different matter altogether, but there is one glaring weakness on the part of Democrats, and it’s called “Unanimous Consent”, which allows for the smooth operation of the Seenot and fosters amity.
Amity will not win elections. Until the public sees the Democratic Party fighting vigorously and effectively against the most pernicious agenda of the most pernicious political party in American History we will continue to lose. Lose badly and repeatedly.
Harry should have kept his promise; we should refuse unanimous consent for anything, even what time a committee might meet, and especially when they are trying to push through their ruinous causes.Every time there is a party-line vote on a controversial issue, every democrat should change their vote to "abstain", so it is crystal clear which party is passing bad stuff. Until we return to our Democratic roots of being the champions and defenders of the people of this country we are doomed to be further relegated into obscurity.
Quick! Name three great things the Republicans have done that benefited the ordinary citizen during the 70’s & 80’s, and the end of the Cold War doesn’t count. Reagan simply outspent the Russians and drove them into bankruptcy trying to keep up. Any teenager with a limitless credit card backed by the treasury could have done that.
Watergate? Domestic spying? Enemies Lists? Iran-Contra? The largest expansion of government ever? The biggest deficits in history? And that doesn’t even cover what Bush has done to America in the first six years of the new century, which includes failing to protect us from 9/11; failing to catch Osama and diverting resources to Iraq; the Iraq attack that is the biggest strategic mistake ever made by America; the proliferation of nuclear weapons on their watch; the creation of thousands of new terrorists; the destruction of America’s reputation; treaties broken and ignored; enemy combatants held forever without charges, trials, attorneys; torture, secret prisons, kidnapping; tax cuts for the uber rich, no body armor or armored vehicles for the troops; poverty rampant, no health insurance for millions; food programs, education funding, child care funds, after school programs, child support enforcement programs all slashed; a doubling of the trade deficit, exploding budget deficits, more money spent in five years than in the preceding two hundred years; the collapse of diplomacy in favor of raw force; the breaking of our military from over extension and multiple tours of duty in a war zone; new domestic spying, the labeling of dissenters as traitors; a president that has assumed imperial powers, a “unitary executive” with plenary power that holds himself above the law; my god, the list is endless, it is vile, it is corrupt, it is amoral, and it has so distorted the world’s view of America that we may never again be respected or trusted.
And this is the party that wins election after election while our Democratic leaders give “unanimous consent” and foster amity in the Seenot instead of fighting with every fiber of their being, every ounce of willpower, and the vigor necessary to stop them in their tracks.
That, in a nutshell, is why I say that the Democratic Party has degenerated into a pack of cowards.
Voters respect those willing to fight for their beliefs. They will ignore labels like "partisan" and "obstructionist" as long as they believe Democrats are fighting for them and their rights and the issues they care about. Lord knows it sure wouldn't hurt the party to be seen fighting for what the public has already told us what they want.
After all, is amity worth the destruction of the American way of life? So grow a pair and a spine, spit right into the eye of the Republicans, and find the heart and courage to fight the good fight, AND WIN. The alternative is too frightening to contemplate.