(updated below)
There were two very significant -- and encouraging -- Congressional developments in the last twenty-four hours relating to the NSA scandal:
First, as reported first this morning by Raw Story, the House Judiciary Committee today approved by voice vote a resolution "requesting" that the Justice Department and the President "turn over all requests made by the National Security Agency and other federal agencies to telephone service providers to obtain information without a warrant." The adoption of this resolution was completely unexpected, and received the support of Republican Committee Chair James Sensenbrenner, who had previously excoriated the Administration for "stonewalling" Congressional investigations into their surveillance activities on Americans.
The request is aimed at the data-collection program revealed last month by USA Today. As Raw Story reported, Rep. John Conyers praised the resolution as follows: "I am pleased that the House Judiciary Committee is exercising its oversight authority and demanding real answers of the Administration." The ACLU similarly praised the House Committee demand as an unexpected though significant step by the Congress to assert meaningful oversight on the administration's lawless surveillance programs aimed at Americans.
Secondly, and I think even more significantly, the House last night overwhelmingly passed (by a vote of 407-19) the Defense Appropriations Act for 2007 (H.R. 5631), which "falls $4 billion below the president's overall funding request for the Pentagon in the upcoming fiscal year." The Administration has threatened to veto (.pdf) the legislation if it "significantly underfunds the Department of Defense to shift funds to non-security spending" and/or because the White House claims that multiple provisions -- needless to say -- "interfere with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief."
But far more significantly than the House's adoption of this legislation was the introduction last night of an amendment by four co-sponsors -- two Republicans and two Democrats (Flake, Inglis, Schiff and Van Hollen) -- "that would cut off funding for illegal wiretapping conducted by the National Security Agency." The amendment specifically provided "that none of the funds appropriated in the bill can be used to conduct electronic surveillance in the United States except pursuant to the criminal wiretapping statutes and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)."
Amazingly, the amendment came very close to passing, as the ACLU reports:
The Judiciary Committee’s move comes on the heels of a 207 - 219 vote in the full House of Representatives last night narrowly rejecting an amendment that would have removed all funding for a related program in which thousands of Americans in the U.S. are eavesdropped upon by the NSA acting without a warrant. Twenty-three Republicans broke with the administration to back the amendment.
The roll call vote on the amendment is here. Only 15 Democrats voted "no." Unsurprisingly, Jane Harman was one of the few who voted "no" (as was Jack Murtha -- underscoring, yet again, the sheer idiocy of claims by Bush apologists that he is some sort of leftist fringe pacifist dove). But by and large, the Democratic caucas held together on this rather extraoardinary amendment, and substantial numbers of Republicans supported it as well.
It has been more than six months since The New York Times revealed that President Bush ordered eavesdropping on American citizens in violation of the criminal law. Virtually all national politicians and media figures, not to mention scores of pro-Bush bloggers, boastfully predicted that the entire matter would be swept away and easily resolved long before now. But it hasn't been and isn't close to being resolved, and there are slow, steady rumblings that more and more members of Congress are becoming less willing, not more, to allow the President to seize all governmental power.
These developments happen slowly and incrementally, and it therefore seems as though nothing is happening. But scandals of this type take time and significant effort to unfold. An amendment to cut off all funding for the warrantless eavesdropping program -- something unmentionable a few months ago -- almost passed the House last night, and had more than a handful of Republicans supporting it. And the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee spontaneously directed the Justice Department and the President to turn over all documents relating to efforts to "induce" telephone companies to provide calling data on Americans.
Even the most impatient and cynical among us must acknowledge that those are surprisingly encouraging developments. One of the oddest aspects of the President's lawlessness has been the degree to which members of Congress have been willing to endure such severe institutional humiliations by essentially being written out of our Government -- the opposite of what the Founders assumed would occur simply by virtue of basic human nature and dignity, which they believed would inevitably engender fights against efforts to render any one particular branch irrelevant. Perhaps Congress is slowly beginning to regain some dignity and purpose and insist upon imposing some limits on the President's monarchical powers.
UPDATE: The judiciary is also showing some incipient signs that it exists. In the litigation brought against AT&T in a San Francisco federal court challenging the legality of AT&T's cooperation with the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, the administration -- as always -- demanded that the court dismiss the entire litigation, and refuse to adjudicate any of the issues, on the ground that adjudication will risk the disclosure of critical "state secrets." Yesterday, the district court judge presiding over the case, Vaughn R. Walker, issued an Order (.pdf) requiring the parties to answer eleven questions about this claim, which: (a) illustrate the frivolous nature of the Bush administration's argument (see e.g., numbers 6 and 7) and (b) strongly suggest that the court is very reluctant to dismiss the lawsuit (h/t to the always resourceful EJ).
For exactly that reason, and because the district court judge in the Michigan case brought by the ACLU has also been insufficiently obedient to the administration, the administration yesterday requested that all cases relating to the legality of the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program be transferred to, and consolidated, in one single court, with one single judge, in Washington, DC, so that all of these issues can be decided at once (and so that they can be removed from these two irreverent judges). The administration is obviously scared that these judges are exercising some independent thought and asserting the right to actually adjudicate accusations that the President has violated the law. As I have always believed, the more branches of this scandal, taking root in more places, the better.
For all the good that the Judiciary Committee is doing here, I wonder if the Republicans are going to use this as another issue to get them reelected in the fall and out-maneuver the Democrats and thus retain control of the House. The developments, though, are indeed encouraging.
ReplyDeleteNothing short of impeachment, conviction and removal from office can begin to save what little of the constitutional order still remains, much less undo any of the damage that has already been done.
ReplyDelete"207 - 219" ... 15 Democrats voting against, including Rep. Harman who just won a primary, among the 15. One does the math to one's depression.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, I hope that you are right and the Congress is prepared to assert some restraint against the executive power grab, but I am skeptical that this won't be another Specter-like maneuver.
ReplyDeleteShort of impeaching George Bush and ordering him arrested, I know that every single act of Congress is going to be met with this sort of skepticism, so I would ask that you consider this:
These are the facts in reality. We have a Republican-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate, along with a media that pays little attention to these issues. Republicans could easily have made this whole thing go away months ago - and still can now --by simply getting together and enacting legislation to legalize warrantless eavesdropping and giving the president and the administration retroactive amensty. The White House has been trying to get that for months.
The political cost of doing that would be low. And yet the Republicans haven't done it. Why do you think that is?
I'm not encouraged until we see a result:
ReplyDelete1. funding shut off
2. Actual documents provided
Until that happens, we're still in the Alito-feingold nonseense, "Hay, we stand for principle; we just can't get the rest of the principled ones to agree."
It's a start, but it still needs some results before the election.
spinozista: impeachment, conviction and removal from office can begin to save what little of the constitutional order still remains
ReplyDeleteAnd a rollback of every secret program, executive order, restructuring of the CIA etc etc.
There should be a constitutional amendment to the effect that every time a President goes to war there must be regular--bi-yearly, eg--accountings for the failures of an administration. The Spartans used to automatically put a war leader on trial, whether he won or lost.
There must be some accounting for the lost lives--soldiers and civilians. Skewering in the press, losing power are nothing in the face of barrels of blood shed and crying from the dirt for justice.
*)*
ReplyDeleteGlenn:
Good point about how they have not "made it go away". Obviously the support for that is not there or Congressional members' political calculation is it will be too costly.
Question:
Is there precedent for retroactive amnesty? Can it subsequently be rescinded by another Congress (say, a Dem one)? If an act is committed prior to the passage of an amnesty law that is retroactive and a subsequent Congress were to rescind retroactive amnesty, would the temporary existence of amnesty granted after the act be an adequate defense if tried for the act?
Also, if the amnesty is granted as composed in the Specter bill, could someone still be tried with the prosecution arguing that the act did not fall under Presidential congressional power of national defense. In that case, would it not be up to a jury to decide if the action was protected. Say, it was found out that Kerry's office was wiretapped - would the defense have to argue it was done because of national security in order to get amnesty? When we come out of this national craziness and see all of this secrecy crap for what it is, will the amnesty hold value for true misuse of the wiretap power?
I really believe that if a blanket retoractive amnesty is passed on this and effective we will be taking a big step towards becoming a banana Republic.
Thanks and keep up the good work.
Dan
Good news indeed!
ReplyDeleteI like it when the right wingers are unable to taint you with any label when you focus on constitutional violations.
thanksforthewonderfuljob!
The first thing I thought of when I read this was Glenn's post Monday about Federalist 69. There, he made a fairly convincing case that most of the administration's claims of unfettered Constitutional authority as "commander in chief" are just plain...well, silly when compared to the actual views of the Founding Fathers.
ReplyDeleteNow, every time the Bush administration produces anything containing the word "Constitutional", it makes me want to go back and look at that actual document.
The "Constitutional Concerns" section in the PDF news release Glenn mentions above just doesn't make any sense when you compare it to the Constitution itself. Seriously, how do they square this:
Section 9012 of the bill purports to prohibit the United States from entering into a basing rights agreement with the Government of Iraq. This provision impermissibly infringes upon the President's constitutional authority to negotiate treaties and conduct the nation's foreign affairs.
With this section of Article II:
Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur
I'm not an expert on constitutional law, but it sure seems to me that "advice and consent" might entitle Congress to have some say in treaties with Iraq, just as: "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" would seem to give Congress authority to regulate military intelligence.
I know I'm not being terribly original here, but I just don't get how this administration can square their views with the most basic reading of the Constitution.
One thing the Congressmen can see is the writing on the wall. Maybe through a glass darkly, but it's there. People don't like having their privacy invaded, and the "leaders" are following the public. Ergo, they will make noises about privacy.
ReplyDeleteWhere is Sam Ervin when you need him. Remember his crusades in the Senate for the protection of people's privacy?
jay c:
ReplyDeleteOr has the Bush Administration perhaps contrived some sort of constitutional loophole to avoid having to get Senate approval of any deal he may (or may not)push on the Iraqis?
What ever gave you the idea that Dubya would have to get an agreement to put up bases there? He hasn't do that yet; why start now?
Cheers,
Only 15 Democrats voted "no." Unsurprisingly, Jane Harman was one of the few who voted "no" (as was Jack Murtha -- underscoring, yet again, the sheer idiocy of claims by Bush apologists that he is some sort of leftist fringe pacifist dove).
ReplyDeleteAnd underscoring the idiocy of the left in thinking Murtha is some kind of heroic politician.
The problem with these good developments is that they mean nothing if they are directed at only "illegal" policies which will soon be made legal anyway.
The intrusion on people's privacy and the trashing of the Fourth Amendment are primarily being done "legally" now. The "illegal" stuff is just a fraction of it.
It's the Patriot Act (and all its subsidiaries) that has to go.
spinozista said...
ReplyDeleteNothing short of impeachment, conviction and removal from office can begin to save what little of the constitutional order still remains, much less undo any of the damage that has already been done.
And trials for war crimes.
glenn, on friday, they will retract this or somehow undermine the process that you are celebrating today.
ReplyDeleteare we ever going to learn?
Well gosh, folks, some of you just don't seem to be able to handle good news. And this is all very, very good news indeed.
ReplyDeleteI was participating at this blog when the NYT story broke in December, and all kinds of Bush-supporters declared it a non-scandal that would go exactly nowhere, including a few right here. It was, you see, a contrived issue of the moonbat, Sheehan-loving, Soros-funded far left, and if it lasted a week or two, that would be the best the "Bush-haters" could hope for. This site, or at least its owner, never succumbed to those smug prognostications.
In point of fact, this scandal has legs, traction, momentum...however you want to put it. The lawlessness is being attacked on too many independent fronts -- with GOP help -- for it to peter out. The near-success in a GOP dominated House to withhold funding of NSA surveillance that violates FISA is, excuse me, but fucking shocking and outstanding.
Myself, I insist on being very optimistic, and also on crediting Glenn with having made a major contribution to what has been, and will be , wrought.
/cheerleader
The processes by which the President makes agreements with foreign governments absent the approval of 2/3 of the senate are called congressional-executive agreements, and executive agreements.
ReplyDeleteRead up on them at Wiki which has a fairly good write up on them.
It is precedented and I'd say this probably falls under the category of things congress has delegated to the president (locations of bases and allotment of forces abroad when invited onto foreign soil).
If not, it certainly could fall under CEAs which just need bicameral majorities.
Formal Treaties seem to be reserved for whoppers like NATO and Kyoto.
Oh yeah, the 11 questions judge was nominated by Bush's dad. Too bad they can't blame Clinton if he rules against the government and forces them to reveal they've been listening to Al Qaeda's phone calls.
ReplyDeleteI for one am terrified the terrorists might figure out the US has surveilance capabilities and is using them. They might start dialing *67 to block their number before phoning in their threats to the FBI!
Is it progress or a judo move? Won't it be vetoed by Would-be King George even if it gets passed by both houses?
ReplyDeleteAT&T is apparently forcing it's customers to agree to a new privacy policy by Friday that AT&T owns all data on their phone usage. See this San Francisco Chronicle article "AT&T rewrites rules: Your data isn't yours".
After people agree to this new policy to avoid having their phone service turned off by the monopoly AT&T, the Bush administration can buy the data at a nice profit for AT&T.
I want to believe it's progress, but I hesitate to let down my guard at all. Eternal vigilance and all that.
(Is there something wrong with Blogger? Login and publish isn't working. Sorry if multiple comments get posted.)
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeleteThere should be a constitutional amendment to the effect that every time a President goes to war there must be regular--bi-yearly, eg--accountings for the failures of an administration. The Spartans used to automatically put a war leader on trial, whether he won or lost.
Clearly there has been a systemic failure. The issue is not that Bush is a bad actor. The possibility that a psychopath could reach the office of President was obviously considered by the Founders. What has failed--and this is not news--is the Congress. They have the theoretical power to rein in the miscreants, but for reasons related to corruption and political cowardice, compounded by a comatose populace, they are not acting.
The solution will likely have to be a constitutional amendment(s), but empowering Congress in any likely incarnation under the current system is likely to be a futile exercise. The Congress is not using the power it has. Giving it new instruction will not cure its political paralysis.
It may be necessary to find a new source of political will, empowering a new agency, independent of the current political system, before we can be sure that this strain of excesses can be contained in the future. So, for the sake of discussion, consider a Constitutionally independent National Inspector General, charged with investigating and prosecuting abuses by the senior tier in both the Executive Branch and Congress. Such an IG would have to arise from some new political process, such as nomination by the ABA, following by confirmation by popular vote in a non-partisan race.
From the major at 11:42PM:
ReplyDelete"It's time to start taking this war seriously."
We are and we have been, friend. We've also been conscious that turning the country into a paranoid fascism kind of negates any 'victory' that might be achieved elsewhere.
Or is that concept a little to 'brainy' for you understand?
wg:
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed very encouraging that the judge managed to keep an open mind about legal issues being raised here instead of blindly granting government security demands as has been the case with too many of his colleagues.
One of my beefs is the folks that claim that judges are not well suited (or qualified) to evaluate "national security" claims. Coming from a maladministration that managed to bollix up Iraq completely, and that made the sober evaluation that Plame should be outed as a CIA NOC to cover the maladministration's political ass (or worse), not to mention leaking like a sieve whatever "secrets" they thought was worth a front page graf in newspapers, this is risible.
But even with a less maladroit -- and a less partisan and scurrilous -- administration, I don't think this claim holds water. The judges are just sitting in judgement of specific legal claims of the parties, and are going to hear the arguments presented by the parties themselves (and can do so in camera or even ex parte as necessary). They don't set the policy, they don't tell the gummint how to conduct its security business, all they do is listen and decide if the claims make sense. And in this, there's nothing wrong with them asking for the specifics, and for any supporting evidence or documentation, to make sure that when the gummint is claiming a "state secrets" privilege, it is in fact a colourable argument that there are indeed grounds for such a claim. That doesn't take being an expert in national security procedures; that's what expert witnesses are for, just as a judge doesn't have to be a MD in order to hear a malpractise case, call witnesses, have them explaikn things, and see which side makes more sense. In "state secrets" cases, the judges can even give a fair bit of deference to the judgements of the gummint in certain areas, perhaps reviewing any privilege claims on a "no rational basis" or "clearly erroneous" standard, but there's no reason judges should be considered unqualified to make the determinations needed here. And plenty of reason for them to do so, rather than simply taking the gummint's word for it.
Cheers,
glenn, on friday, they will retract this or somehow undermine the process that you are celebrating today.
ReplyDeleteare we ever going to learn?
So what do you suggest - just give up? Sit at home and whine about how all is lost? Pump out fists and demand that "Chimpy be hanged for war crimes?"
You defeatist people are so annoying. You want to be victims. Every time Glen points out something good that happens, you come along and whine that it's not good enough. Pathetic.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom the major at 11:42PM:
"It's time to start taking this war seriously."
I believe The Major is Steve Colbert's writer, or should be. Hilarious!
Re: "The Major"....
ReplyDeleteHmmmm. Maybe the rank is wrong. Anyone suspect that it's The General instead poking around over here under cover?
;-)
Cheers,
Glenn Greenwald...The political cost of doing that would be low. And yet the Republicans haven't done it. Why do you think that is?
ReplyDeleteThey know damn well Democrats will control the House, Senate and Executive by 2008, leaving only the judiciary, and that process takes time to act.
dan:
ReplyDeleteThe processes by which the President makes agreements with foreign governments absent the approval of 2/3 of the senate are called congressional-executive agreements, and executive agreements.
I think perhaps you missed my point. "We don't need no steeeeeenking treaties..." That's what they've done already (not to mention the [hopefully] pliant gummint they bought themselves after the fact). Do you really think that Dubya would leave if they wanted him to and he didn't want to? I mean, he didn't exactly ask permission to mmove ikn to begin with....
Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDeleteRe: "The Major"....
Hmmmm. Maybe the rank is wrong. Anyone suspect that it's The General instead poking around over here under cover?
;-)
Cheers,
I don't think it's Patriotboy's style. It's another wannabe Merkin Patriot (or the genuine article, a wingnut-in-need-of-a-brain, moran). Not bad, but not as good as the original or one or two accomplished imitators.
Anonymous at 12:23 AM said...
ReplyDeleteGlenn Greenwald...The political cost of doing that would be low. And yet the Republicans haven't done it. Why do you think that is?
They know damn well Democrats will control the House, Senate and Executive by 2008, leaving only the judiciary, and that process takes time to act.
I am not so sure that there is a well-thought-out plan on anyone's part in this farce. People who run for Congressional seats are not necessarily the sharpest pencils in the cup. My guess is they haven't figured out what they can and can't get away with. Repubs are nothing if not timid, all the boo-yah rhetoric notwithstanding.
We have never been in this place before as a nation, with such a sick puppy in the White House making such egregious attempts to aggrandize the Executive. That air of unreality that has seeped into the national mindset since 9/11 is giving everyone a disorienting dose of PTSD.
Hitler/Coulter who said what test. Brilliant.
ReplyDeleteThe similar LGF/Nazi test was equally brilliant. They are Nazis and fascists, plain and simple.
Reichstag Burning said...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 12:23 AM said...
I'm not a big fan of the Clinton's, (too centrist, though I'd gladly have them back, most would) but I do think there is a chance we will have Hil in the White House in 2008. If so, I hope the old maxim is true. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. (It's true. I know from personal experience.) I hope she take after the GOP with the newly found powers of the unitary executive and eviscerates them. De-claws and neuters them and relegates them to the dustbin of history.
And when the bill denying W the power to fund his illegal spying arrived for signature, he'd no doubt issue a signing statement that he had no intention of obeying it. Then what?
ReplyDeletedan:
ReplyDeleteThe processes by which the President makes agreements with foreign governments absent the approval of 2/3 of the senate are called congressional-executive agreements, and executive agreements.
Thanks for the link. But from the adminstration's statement, it sounds like Bush is disputing the Constitutional authority of the Senate to have ANY involvement in the treaty negotiation, whether it's by a simple majority vote or two-thirds.
Am I reading too much into this? Is this par for the course, or is the administration finding a new way to push the bounds of their authority?
It would be interesting to match up the Republican 'yea' votes with those running in (tight) reelection races in November. The devil could be in the details and the Republicans did just use this CYA tactic in the minimum wage vote.
ReplyDeleteEWO... It's the Patriot Act (and all its subsidiaries) that has to go.
ReplyDeleteYou voted for it. Eat it. Don't tell me you didn't. The fact that you are a gullible rube and idiot is no excuse.
Goatboy, what about these four words do you not understand? I DID NOT VOTE. Me no vote for father or son, comprende?
If you voted you are the one who voted for the Patriot Act, which passed 99-1 in the Senate and enjoys the wide support of both parties.
STOOPID.
PS. It's not like it was a big shock that those 99 voted for the Patriot Act. Intelligent people don't have to wait for the denouement to figure out who the murderer is---the clues are always there in the first act.
But that wouldn't apply to you, so sorry to bring it up.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's Patriotboy's style. It's another wannabe Merkin Patriot (or the genuine article, a wingnut-in-need-of-a-brain, moran). Not bad, but not as good as the original or one or two accomplished imitators.
I agree; my ol' UseNet colleague (and I mean that in a manly kind of way) Patriotboy is capable of such, but it's not quite his style. Buit it's really constructed in such a careful way that it's hard tobelieve that it's the work of a true RW fomaer or eedjit. He just never misses a chance to contradict himself and in the most hilarious fashion, and that takes too much forethought and self-awareness ... too much intelligence. But far be it from me to disabuse anyone of the notion that the RW doesn't have people capable of saying such stoopid things (see, e.g., HWSNBN in the previous post) ... nevermind.
Cheers,
anonymous #1 said:
ReplyDeleteI'm not a big fan of the Clinton's, (too centrist, though I'd gladly have them back, most would) but I do think there is a chance we will have Hil in the White House in 2008. If so, I hope the old maxim is true. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. (It's true. I know from personal experience.) I hope she take after the GOP with the newly found powers of the unitary executive and eviscerates them. De-claws and neuters them and relegates them to the dustbin of history.
While I agree that the Rethugs deserve to have someone (not Hillary, but rather someone like Rios-Montt, shall we say, or the Argentine generals, or Pinochet, or perhaps maybe even the role model for all, Hitler?) put the screws to them by abusing this "privilege" or "power", I can't say I hope it happens. I'd hope that if we get a Democrat in office, they respect the rule of law, and go after the Rethugs in legal ways....
Anonymous #2 said:
And when the bill denying W the power to fund his illegal spying arrived for signature, he'd no doubt issue a signing statement that he had no intention of obeying it. Then what?
I basically asked this question of Jesse Choper in ConLaw class, and he said "That's a matter for a different course" and moved on.
And it is. Perhaps "Political Systems 501: What To Do When Things Break Down". Or "21st Century Revolutions".....
Cheers,
I hear what you're saying, Arne, but just look at his blog. That's an awful lot of time to put into an act that receives such little attention. (Not to mention how hard it is to spell that badly that consistently.) And check out how mad he gets when you call him a pussy!
ReplyDeleteIf it's a fake, it's one of the great ones.
"as was Jack Murtha -- underscoring, yet again, the sheer idiocy of claims by Bush apologists that he is some sort of leftist fringe pacifist dove"
ReplyDeletepriceless. now get this message out to the ten thousand most prominent republican/conservative blogs, and the top 300 newspapers and stations in this country.
sounds like a joke, right? and maybe this quote is not the best example, but it does make the point:
this is the kind of bull crap that the far right continues to spin, and it manipulate and misleads Americans in so doing
THAT has to be made into the story. whether it's santorum's delayed "discovery" of outdated pre war mustard gas (from the post above), or the constant mischaracterization of jack murtha, or 1000's of other examples, THIS is what the far right does, and as suggested before, it must itself be made into the Story before the harm it does begins to be at least equaled by the harm to the far right wing's own credibility to mainstream America thereby.
clearly, thus far, that credibility has not suffered much, because we have a large portion of Congress that is far right wing, a far right wing White House, and now, 3 to probably 4 far right wing Justices... and meanwhile, a so called "reasonable" newsmagazine does a feature article on the radical extremist anne coulter, and presents her as merely as some sort of equal voice on the "right," as if, in TIME's bizrre world, she were the counterpart to say, John Kerry for example.
buck b.:
ReplyDeletehear what you're saying, Arne, but just look at his blog. That's an awful lot of time to put into an act that receives such little attention. (Not to mention how hard it is to spell that badly that consistently.) And check out how mad he gets when you call him a pussy!
Ummm, I'm the one that called him a "pussy" there. Just search up. ;-)
That he has a blog is hardly dispositive.
He's just a bit too good in his hypocrisy and his stoopidity (and some of it in a rather abstruse way) to attribute it to stoopidity and/or chance. But while I'm beginning to doubt his bonafides in the "Santorum/Coburn Brigades", I will admit that it is still a possibility.
Cheers,
The Major said...
ReplyDelete"And here's another thing. Why cant everybody understand that if your not talking to al quaeda then you have nothing to worry about. I'm not talking to al quaeda. So I dont care if they tap my calls. Why should I. There not going to find out anything bad. So I have to wonder why you all are so worryed. Are you all talking to al quaeda.
And as I have pointed out before you dont have any civil liberties when your dead. Pat Roberts said that many times and its true. I don't care what Patrick Henry said. He's dead anyway so why should we care what he said anyway. Besides why do we care about what some loser english guy said anyway.
It's time to start taking this war seriously."
You should go sign up Major and do your part since you seem to feel so strongly about it. And don't worry about the age, they just changed it again today to let older guys in. Your country needs you Major. They are calling you. Can't you hear them?
MAJOR! MAJOr! MAJor! MAjor! Major! major! majo! maj! ma! m! .........
Say, Buck B.:
ReplyDeleteEver seen Bob Boudelang? I think that's the Major's illegitimate son....
Cheers,
I keep teelin y'all the Major is George himself.
ReplyDeleteOh, all right. I am encouraged. Mildly.
ReplyDeleteI'm gonna ask him the next time he is on when I'm posting.
ReplyDeleteInquiring minds want to know. :-)
Just more political posturing on both sides, with no more substance than any of Arlen Specter's shameless BS. So what if they vote to cut off the funding for the NSA's illegal data-mining? Haven't any of you ever heard of black budgets? The NSA won't feel a thing. As for Sensenbrenner: he'll fold his tent just as soon as Uncle Dick tells him to.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is progress, however I think Glenn missed something. The House Judiciary's request was to turn over documents with regards to getting data from telephone service providers.
ReplyDeleteI speculate that the NSA and the Administration didn't make requests to telephone service providers. They made these requests to 3rd party data brokers, who then presumably made the request to telephone service providers. Perhaps this is a maneuver that allows both the Administration to look respectable and Congress to look responsible.
I smell a rat. This stinks like the Secret Service logs for Jack Abramoff. Those records were blatantly incomplete, yet the MSM and the Republicans were able to sweep it away and say "nothing to see here folks, move along."
This latest effort to get beyond the NSA scandal will fail, of course, but let's not get too excited. There is a long way to go.
The problem with what Sensenbrenner is asking for is that if the NSA is not asking the telecoms for information, but a third party, NSA can simply say that they have not requested information from the telecoms, because technically they haven't. For Sensenbrenner's request to matter a damn, he'd have to request the NSA turn over any information requests to any company, not just the telecoms. Personally, I see this as a posture on his part because I think he already knows that the telecoms weren't asked directly.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSo if fifteen dems had voted yes it would have passed.
ReplyDeleteAlmost makes you want to cry.
This is great news. Seems like a number of Republicans have decided that dubya is leading them over a cliff.
ReplyDeleteI am interested in those 23 repubs and 15 dems. Anyone know where you can find a vote analysis with party and district instead of only the last name?
Who are those 15 dems? what region are they from? they should be held accountable at the ballotbox for this craven vote.
Hypatia,
ReplyDelete"In point of fact, this scandal has legs, traction, momentum...however you want to put it."
Yep, any day now these rumblings and awakenings will turn into another winning argument for Democrats, kinda like this one:
[Think Progress]
"Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) announced that he will introduce a resolution tomorrow to censure President Bush for authorizing an illegal warrantless domestic surveillance program. Feingold said President Bush’s actions were 'right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors.'"
Oops, well no, maybe it's gonna be more like this one:
[Excerpts of S.2766]
"The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests."
Over the horizon? Where might that be, Okinawa, Japan 4000 miles away as Rep. Murtha has suggested?
[johnkerry.com]
"On Thursday, the Senate voted on the Kerry-Feingold proposal to redeploy American combat troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007. Thirteen Senators voted for it."
Oops, oh well...
One of these days these guys are really gonna turn up the heat! You'll see!