This came together a little bit last minute, so I apologize for the late notice, but I'm extremely pleased to announce that Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism coordinator for two presidential administrations and vocal critic of the Bush approach to security, will be hosting the discussion of my new book, Still Broken, this afternoon over at FireDogLake.com at 5 p.m.
The book recounts my time as an intelligence officer working for the Defense Intelligence Agency, essentially the spy arm of the Department of Defense, and explains how not only are the problems with intelligence analysis that led to things like 9/11 and the WMD debacle continuing, they're becoming institutionalized. Rewarding good news rather than accurate news is an issue that's becoming a permanent part of a broken intelligence process, and while I experienced that at the bottom of the process, Clarke saw how and why that kind of culture was created from the very top. He has been an insightful and courageous voice on terrorism, FISA and wiretapping issues, and Iraq, and I hope you'll head over to FireDogLake.com at 5 p.m. today to participate in the conversation about Still Broken.
The surveillance law is so important that they're trying to kill it, in order to prove how important it really is. Now who doesn't care about catching Osama? Then again, these are the same people who haven't caught Osama in 7 years, and don't really seem all that interested in doing so.
Okay, if Dianne Feinstein is doing the right thing, then Democrats really have no excuse here. Here is her statement, just released:
“I have decided to vote against the FISA Bill before the Senate. This is not an easy decision because I strongly believe that we need to modernize the law relating to the gathering of foreign intelligence, and I support many of the provisions in the Senate bill.
However, I believe this bill didn’t do enough to protect against the assertion of executive power. I have said on many occasions that without the additional language to strengthen and tighten the exclusivity already in FISA, I could not support final passage.
I offered an amendment on this very issue. My amendment, which would have made it clear that FISA is the excusive authority for wiretapping U.S. persons for foreign intelligence purposes, received well more than a majority of this body – 57 votes. But it did not receive the 60 votes required. Given this strong vote, I remain hopeful that similar language will be included in a FISA bill that goes to the President.
There should never be another warrantless surveillance program. And I continue to believe that there should be a strong statement in law making it crystal clear that FISA must be followed, period.
Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate did not include such language and simply didn’t go far enough in protecting against executive power. That’s why I voted against the Senate bill.”
9:09: And we're off! This is AJ; Joe and John may jump in at some point. Hey look! CheneyBot makes an appearance!
9:11: I guess this is what happens when your speechwriter jumps to WaPo . . . "Vigorous debate and we answered the call"? That, um, doesn't make any sense.
9:15: Look, it's Serious Bush. He's very sad about the economy he ruined. And he's threatening to veto a bill that he's already agreed to sign. Ooohhh, Cheney is VERY amused by the idea that some people pay taxes. Funny stuff!
9:20: In only four short years, we can get back to the surplus we had . . . right before Bush was elected. So he's telling me it'll take four years to undo eight years of economic damage? Um, that seems like a bad deal.
9:22: Doctors should make health care decisions! Unless insurance companies overrule them. Or if you can't afford to see a doctor. On the bright side, I loved Hillary's response to that, which was basically to roll her eyes. Also: trial lawyers are baaaaaaaad. Baddity bad bad. God forbid people should be have a remedy after being harmed.
9:26: Our children is learning!
9:29: I could have sworn we were at war somewhere . . . I guess I was wrong. Weird.
9:31: Will that new technology get us to Mars? I heard we're going to Mars. Mars, anybody? Mars?? I also heard that dedicating money to research helps it along. Energy research included, I'm pretty sure. Could be wrong.
9:35: Just about at the half hour mark. Nothing about Iraq. Nothing about Afghanistan. Maybe he's saving it for his closing argument or something.
9:38: Immigration is the "other" pressing issue. Not sure what the first one was . . . Mars? Bush is brutalizing his base on immigration right now -- he knows that his bill was torpedoed by Republicans, right?
9:41: Hey look, foreign policy! Yeah, how's that Lebanon thing working out right now? The ol' purple finger routine is pretty ridiculous at this point, no?
9:42: 9/11. Millions of people just did a shot. P.S. We're gonna get that Osama guy one of these days. Terrorists! Another shot, everybody. Try to keep up.
9:45: Iraq time. New mission: pay off our former enemies. Make no improvements in the political situation. Call it victory. This is very frustrating to watch. "Iraqi government has stepped up as well" . . . like, uh, how?
9:49: Iran. Drink. You know, it's easy to just keep claiming that we're going to win. But it would be kinda cool if Bush changed something -- anything -- in his strategy for those purposes.
9:53: Baghdad is making progress. Also, Baghdad needs to make progress. There seems to be some kind of logical issue there, but I can't figure out what it is. Iraq = source of stability. Mmmkay. Aaaaaaand they're GOING TO ATTACK TEH WASHINGTON!!11!11!! If you're scared enough, maybe you'll vote Republican.
9:55: Iran is TEH EVIL. Also, they're looking for nukes. Seriously. I'm sure this isn't scaremongering. Honest. "America will confront those who threaten our troops" . . . unless your name rhymes with Shmin Shladen.
10:00: FISA time -- Democrats are soft on terror, terror, 9/11 . . . I'm pretty sure I've seen this movie before. In related news, FDL just exploded.
10:02: Why did Bush grin when he mentioned Darfur? Hey, alliteration! That's a fun toy. Is this over yet? I'm in a room with about 25 people and it's devolved into shouting at the teevee. Just excruciating all around. I will now light myself on fire.
10:04: Look ma, no legacy! As far as I can tell, the big goals for this year are (1) reducing earmarks, and (2) scaring people. On the one hand, it's not very ambitious. On the other, he might actually be able to handle those goals. But none of our big problems will be helped. 2009 can't come soon enough. And with that, I'm outta here. Have a good night, and don't forget to drink lots of water before you go to bed tonight. TTFN.
First up in terms of voting will be the cloture vote that Sen. McConnell moved on Friday, regarding closing debate on S.2248. If the "no" votes take it, then there is a subsequent cloture vote to allow for a 30-day extension of the PAA, as I understand it, so that both the House and Senate can take time to go through the materials on NSA domestic spying that the Bush Administration finally turned over to the House Intel committee late last week. (Piles and piles of paper, which they have been pouring over all weekend, I hear.)
If that fails, then we are potentially back to debate on S.2248 and all of the proposed amendments that various groups have been trying to put forward to improve the bill -- or change it in some way, depending on the amendment. And we are again facing the potential of a Dodd filibuster, among other efforts to block wholesale passage of telecom immunity and basket warrants, among other constitutional and legal problems with the bill.
Or Sen. Reid could remove the bill from consideration altogether if the 30-day extension is not agreed to, the PAA would expire on Friday, and we would then go back to the FISA bill as it stood before this whole chain of idiocy began -- and we could start fresh with the House RESTORE Act as a base for negotiations potentially. Or any number of other scenarios that can be spun out from there.
After the jump, Senator Reid's remarks, as prepared for delivery on the Senate floor concerning these votes...
Just a few hours from now, President Bush will stand in the well of the House of Representatives, just a few hundred yards across the Capitol from here, to deliver his final State of the Union address.
It’s a fair bet that in this speech, he will continue the drumbeat started by Dick Cheney last week by trying to scare the American people into believing that if he does not get his way on the FISA bill now before us, America’s national security will be gravely jeopardized.
I have said on more than one occasion in recent days that the we face: a faltering economy at home and a failing foreign policy abroad – call upon us to rise above partisanship.
I have said on more than one occasion that we extend our hand to the President and Congressional Republicans and hope they join us in a genuine spirit of bipartisanship.
But, M. President, in my twenty years in Congress, I have not seen anything quite as cynical and counterproductive as the Republican approach to FISA.
The American people deserve to know that when President Bush talks about the foreign intelligence bill tonight, he’s doing little more than shooting for cheap political points – and we should reject his efforts.
Members of Congress from both parties have legitimate policy disagreements on FISA.
Some of us believe that history proves the need for more protections against government abuse. Others support the law the way it stands.
But all of us – Democrats and Republicans – want to wage an effective fight against terrorism.
All of us – Democrats and Republicans– want to give our intelligence professionals the tools they need to win this fight.
We will be taking two votes: the first is on whether to invoke cloture on the Bond-Rockefeller substitute to the FISA bill that we have on the floor.
The second is a cloture vote on whether to extend the authorities of the Protect America Act for an additional 30 days, while Congress works to pass a new FISA bill.
I will oppose cloture on the substitute, and will support cloture on the extension.
An extension will give the Senate time to fully debate this complex issue and pass a longer-term law that protects America without compromising the privacy of law-abiding Americans.
Both the Intelligence Committee bill and the Judiciary Committee bill authorize the same surveillance tools our intelligence community needs. Democrats and Republicans stand together on all of the terrorism-fighting components of these bills.
Some Democrats, including me, support the additional privacy protections in the Judiciary Committee bill. Others are satisfied with the protections in the Intelligence Committee bill.
But all of us believe that the Senate should have an opportunity to vote on these important questions.
As a result, many Democrats, including Chairman Rockefeller, are going to oppose cloture on the substitute because they object to the heavy-handed tactics of the Republicans we saw last week on this legislation.
The Republican leader filed cloture on this bill after it had been on the floor for just a few hours. He filed cloture after Republicans blocked every amendment they could from being offered and blocked all amendments from getting votes.
In simple terms, this means the Republicans were filibustering their own bill. Let me repeat that. The Republicans were filibustering their own bill. In my time in the Senate, I can’t remember this taking place.
Meanwhile, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, President Bush has actually threatened to veto a temporary extension of FISA.
Let’s remember – a temporary extension would guarantee all the terrorism-fighting tools remain in effect. There is absolutely no policy or security problem with an extension.
All it would do is give us more time to work toward bipartisanship while the law continues uninterrupted.
There is no reason to vote against an extension – or for the President to veto one- - except for political posturing.
None of us want the current law to expire. But if it does expire because of Republican tactics, surveillance will not end.
All surveillance orders issued under the law we passed last August, the Protect America Act, are effective for one year, so they will continue until at least August of 2008.
Even in a last resort -- if the current law expires, our intelligence professionals can get surveillance orders under the FISA law as it existed for several decades before we passed the Protect America Act last August. FISA includes provisions for emergency warrantless surveillance.
Again, no one is arguing that the law should be allowed to expire. Doing so would send the wrong message.
But the safeguards in place ensure that our war on terror will not be adversely affected. Anyone who says otherwise, from the President on down, is not being truthful.
Why do Democrats seek an extension? We still believe that bipartisanship is appropriate and possible. The economic stimulus package shows us that when circumstances are dire, we can work together.
The Republican leadership’s actions in this FISA debate have not given us reason for confidence that they are interested in working with us, but we owe it to the American people to give them every opportunity to work with us.
Democrats have requested a 30-day extension repeatedly. Each time, Republicans have said no.
Compromise, M. President, is a two way street. Bipartisanship is a two way street.
As I said last week, we are willing to pass an extension of current law for two weeks, 30 days, 18 months – whatever our colleagues want. But we need to pass an extension now if we are to ensure that the law does not expire. The House is going out of session shortly.
Already, Democrats have introduced several amendments to strengthen the bill:
- Sen. Feingold sought a vote on his amendment to provide FISA court documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Republicans blocked him.
- Sen. Whitehouse sought to offer an amendment to give the FISA court authority to review compliance with minimization rules, to protect the privacy of Americans whose communications are inadvertently intercepted. Republicans blocked him.
- Sen. Cardin sought to offer an amendment to sunset this legislation in four years, rather than six, to make sure the Congress returns to this legislation sooner to evaluate how it is working. Republicans blocked him.
- Sen. Kennedy sought to offer an amendment providing for a report by the Inspectors General of the relevant agencies to review the conduct of these programs in the past. Republicans blocked him.
- Sen. Feinstein sought to offer an amendment making crystal clear that FISA is the exclusive means by which the executive branch may conduct surveillance. Republicans blocked her.
Whether these amendments pass or not, M. President, we should be allowed to have votes on them. That is what the U.S. Senate does. We take up bills reported to us by our committees, senators offer amendments to them, and we let the Senate work its will. The Republicans can’t block us from voting on any amendments and expect us to follow along. Senators are entitled to a vote on their amendments.
And with Republicans blocking every amendment, we haven’t gotten to the crucial issue of immunity.
Let’s not forget: the question of retroactive immunity wouldn’t even be before us if President Bush hadn’t ignored Congress and established his own process outside the law.
But far from taking responsibility for his actions, the President bullies and threatens the Congress he is supposed to work with. He is like the kid in the schoolyard taking his ball and going home when he doesn’t get his way.
When the President talks tonight about how important this program is and how it must continue, I say to him that he must reconsider his political posture and ask his colleagues in the Senate to support an extension.
We are the deliberative body. Let us deliberate.
I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on the substitute amendment, so that the Senate can return to considering and improving this bill.
We must pass a bill that gives our intelligence authorities the tools they need, while protecting the privacy of all Americans.
And I urge my colleagues to support the extension, so that we can ensure that current authority does not expire while Congress works to pass a new and stronger FISA bill.
I'm sitting at progressive media summit in the US Senate today. It's an annual event that the Democrats put on for progressive bloggers and talk radio, so that we can meet with Senators and House members and talk about the issues of the day. Oops, strike that. It's apparently a chance for members of Congress to come give us speeches about how they're not blame for being outsmarted repeatedly by the Republicans, and then they get to flee before we can ask any questions. This is actually pretty pathetic, so far. (Stoller just got up and yelled at Senator Stabenow, asking her when we're going to get to ask questions - good for Matt.) Reid and Hoyer both just spoke and hurriedly left before anyone could ask a single question. Last year, we got to ask questions of the members coming to speak. They were good questions, hard questions. Perhaps that's why we're not getting to ask them this year. We're told that the schedule is a little behind, that's why we can't ask questions. So now we're watching some propaganda video showing us how wonderful the Democrats are. Much more important than actually talking to Senator Reid or Congressman Hoyer about Iraq or FISA. Yes, assemble all the top bloggers and talk radio folks in the same room and then piss them off. And who says the Democrats don't know anything about PR?
After the jump, why the Republicans are so good at using filibusters while the Dems pretty much sucked at it. (Actually, I kind of feeling like we're being filibustered right now.)
Anyway, back to the "substance." Senator Reid just explained to us, and Senator Stabenow just expanded on the point, that because of all the Republican filibusters - 62 to date - the Dems aren't able to do what we want them to do on Iraq and other issues.
Hmmm.... a few thoughts.
First, if the filibuster is such a potent weapon then why didn't Dems use it more often, and more effectively, when we were in the minority?
Second, Dems didn't filibuster as much, or as effectively, as the Republicans because it's not just how big your party's majority (or minority) is in the Senate. Just as important is how good a job you do on the public relations/spin surrounding the issue. All Bush has to do is say "Osama!" and the Democrats cave. That isn't because they don't have enough members in their majority, it's because the members they have don't have enough backbone. And no increase in their majority is going to change that fact, or their courage.
PS After Matt yelled at them, we now get to ask questions.
Well, now we get to see whether Senator Reid has bigger balls than George Bush. I like Senator Reid, we haven't been nearly as critical of him as some, but at this point, I'd like to see some leadership. I'd like to see someone who is actually smarter, and tougher, than George Bush. That isn't asking for much. But we have yet to see it. If Bush wants to endanger the war on terror with a stroke of his pen, why is it so hard to understand that he will be the one paying the price. He lies and lies and blusters and lies. And all the Democrats do is cave. The Democrats aren't just sending the message that all you have to do is yell "Osama!" and they'll cave. Democrats are also sending the message that they aren't willing to stick up for themselves, ever. And as someone said to me about John Kerry right before the November 2004 election: If he isn't willing to defend himself, how is he going to defend my kids? The Democrats are defining themselves as their worst stereotype: weak-kneed wimps. And in a time of war, let alone most other times, people don't vote for wimps.
Here is more on Bush now threatening a veto. And here is Senator Reid's response he just issued:
The White House threat to veto a short extension of the Protect America Act is shamefully irresponsible. The President is simply posturing in advance of Monday's State of the Union address.
When it comes to providing a strong long-term Foreign Intelligence Surveillance bill, Democrats in Congress are focused on solutions, while Republicans are obviously playing politics.
The House has already passed a FISA bill, and the Senate was ready to pass its own bill until Republicans blocked all amendments. At the same time, Democrats are ready to extend current law for as long as necessary, but Republicans are blocking that extension and the White House is threatening a veto.
It is shenanigans like this that make Americans so eager for change. We hope the American public will remember these Republican stunts when they go to the polling booth this November.
In any event, current law ensures that no ongoing collection activity will be cut off on February 1. There will be no terrorism intelligence collection gap. But if there is any problem, the blame will clearly and unequivocally fall where it belongs: on President Bush and his allies in Congress.
Here we go again. The Hill reports that Bush is putting pressure on the Senate to pass his the FISA bill giving immunity to the telecoms -- and of course, Bush invokes national security:
“If Congress does not act quickly, our national security professionals will not be able to count on critical tools they need to protect our nation, and our ability to respond quickly to new threats and circumstances will be weakened,” Bush said in a statement.
We've seen this play out too many times. In a column from last November, Dan Froomkin explained what Bush does -- and how Democrats respond:
...Bush has learned that the higher he ratchets up the rhetoric, especially if he can accuse his critics of being weak on terror, the more likely Congressional Democrats are to fold. He's simply counting on that happening again.
Senator Dodd is going to filibuster FISA. This should be a no-brainer for Democrats.
But now that Bush has played the terror card, Democrats will undoubtedly cave. Not a question of whether it happens, more like how quickly it happens.
Did you get that? The same phone companies who simply HAD to give the feds all of our most private phone information, including calls you made and received, without the necessary court order, are now willing to stop that same surveillance because the feds didn't pay their bills on time. And it resulted in lost evidence:
''We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence,'' according to the audit by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.
Really, were we listening in to Osama when the greedy phone companies shut off the wiretap? I think someone should be asking just which company did this, and just what evidence we lost? Was this a terror case? Could innocent Americans have been killed?
So to the big phone companies, the rule of law doesn't matter. Promises to protect your privacy don't matter. But if you don't show them the money, suddenly all their "we had to illegally spy on you to defend national security" talk goes out the window. National security isn't so important to the big phone companies when money is involved. I'm so heartened that the Democrats are going to give these same greedy, un-American companies immunity in only a few weeks.
I must say, I'm extremely impressed with Senator Dodd and his staff today. Dodd fought an uphill battle all the way on this, slowly but surely gaining ground, and today he won, and on a hugely important issue. He demonstrated leadership, rather than simply talking about how he might lead in the future, and really did something good for the nation.
The Senate late Monday delayed its consideration of a vote on a new government eavesdropping bill until January.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid delayed the bill because there were more than a dozen amendments planned, and not enough time left on the legislative calendar to manage them.
Matt Browner-Hamlin at the Dodd campaign website has more, including this statement from the Senator: "Today we have scored a victory for American civil liberties and sent a message to President Bush that we will not tolerate his abuse of power and veil of secrecy."
If you approve of this kind of leadership, maybe think about saying so with a donation. It's not so much the amount, but the message -- that we care and we're paying attention and that doing the right thing matters.
Been collecting some of the early reaction to the announcement that Alberto Gonzales has resigned. We'll post more as they come in...
UPDATE: Just added statements from Pelosi and Conyers below -- and now also Senator Clinton. Bush is speaking at 11:50 a.m. Word is that he's not happy and is going to express his displeasure. Whatever. His A.G. is a liar -- that's standard operating procedure for Bush, but for most of the rest of us, that's a problem.
Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove. This resignation is not the end of the story. Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House.
Senator Patrick Leahy, who will oversee the confirmation hearing for the next AG, had this to say:
Reacting to press reports about the resignation, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said he hopes that Gonzales’s decision “will be a step toward getting to the truth about the level of political influence this White House wields over the Department of Justice and toward reconstituting its leadership so that the American people can renew their faith in its role as our leading law enforcement agency.”
Leahy added that under Gonzales, “the Department of Justice suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence.”
Senator John Cornyn is on CNN right now defending Gonzales. He thinks this is a "sad day" and "sad commentary." That's rich.
The resignation of Attorney General Gonzales is long overdue. The rampant politicization of federal law enforcement that occurred under his tenure seriously eroded public confidence in our justice system.
The President must now restore credibility to the office of the Attorney General. Given the serious loss of public trust and the disarray at the Department of Justice, the American people must have absolute confidence in the integrity of the next Attorney General as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and as defender of our constitution independent of political influence. The President’s nominee must have the character and stature to command that confidence.
The nominee must also pledge to cooperate with ongoing congressional oversight into the conduct of the White House in the politicization of federal law enforcement. Hearings on the nominee will provide Congress with another opportunity to examine the new, flawed FISA law and will aid in our efforts to improve it.
Chair of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers:
It is a sad day when the Attorney General of the United States resigns amid a cloud of suspicion that the system of justice has been manipulated for political purposes. More than accountability, we need answers. Unfortunately, the continued stonewalling of the White House in the U.S. Attorney scandal has deprived the American people of the truth. If the power of the prosecutor has been misused in the name of partisanship, we deserve a full airing of the facts. The responsibility to uncover these facts is still on the Congress, and the Judiciary Committee in particular.
Hillary Clinton weighs in -- with a warning shot about the next nominee:
This resignation is long overdue, and so is the appointment of an Attorney General who will put the rule of law and our Constitution above partisan politics.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took an oath to uphold our Constitution and respect the rule of law, but time and time again, he demonstrated that his loyalties lie with the President and his political agenda, not the American people or the evenhanded and impartial enforcement of our laws. In his actions and inaction, from warantless wiretaps to the firing of U.S. Attorneys, his loyalty was to the President, not the American people.
The Department’s hardworking lawyers, law enforcement officers, and staff are trusted to defend our Constitution, not one Administration or political party. That trust is central to the sanctity of the rule of law and the vitality of our democracy. Because he betrayed his obligations and the trust of the American people, I welcome today’s announcement that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned his post as Attorney General of the United States.
My hope is that the President will select a new Attorney General who will respect the rule of law and abandon partisanship, who will serve the American people and not the President’s political ideology, and who will answer to the Constitution and not political operatives. It is past time to clean up this mess and restore non-partisan accountability and competence to the Department of Justice.
The second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina is one more reminder that the President must appoint someone to lead the Department of Justice with the leadership and competence necessary to defend the Constitution.
Steve Benen at the Carpetbagger Report has the McConnell interview -- and the appropriate commentary -- I bolded the most offensive sections:
Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell has managed to develop a fairly good reputation in DC, which is why it’s all the more curious he made comments like these to the El Paso Times.
Q: Even if it’s perception, how do you deal with that? You have to do public relations, I assume.
A: Well, one of the things you do is you talk to reporters. And you give them the facts the best you can. Now part of this is a classified world. The fact we’re doing it this way means that some Americans are going to die, because we do this mission unknown to the bad guys because they’re using a process that we can exploit and the more we talk about it, the more they will go with an alternative means and when they go to an alternative means, remember what I said, a significant portion of what we do, this is not just threats against the United States, this is war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Q. So you’re saying that the reporting and the debate in Congress means that some Americans are going to die?
A. That’s what I mean. Because we have made it so public. We used to do these things very differently, but for whatever reason, you know, it’s a democratic process and sunshine’s a good thing. We need to have the debate.
It’s hard to even know where to start with comments like these. To hear McConnell tell it, the very discussion of the administration’s surveillance powers will kill an untold number of Americans — but “sunshine’s a good thing.”
And why, pray tell, are Americans going to die as a result of a public debate about presidential power? Apparently, because the bad guys will get a vague sense of the kind of tactics we’ll use to intercept their communications. That might sound vaguely persuasive, but it doesn’t stand up well to scrutiny. Terrorists might figure out that the U.S. will tap phone lines? I think they knew that. Terrorists might figure out that we can monitor email and bank transactions? I think they knew that, too.
It's really unbelievable how far Bush and his appointees will go to destroy American democracy.
Okay, the height of hypocrisy is anyone in the Bush administration challenging anything as "highly misleading." Liars don't have the standing to call anyone else a liar. But, that doesn't prevent the Bush team from doing it anyway. Because everyone in the Bush administration knows that the media will dutifully report their lies:
The White House issued a statement that criticized as “highly misleading” a front-page article in The New York Times on Monday that described the legislation as having “broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.”
The White House took issue not with the article’s account of the new law’s provisions, but instead with its characterization of the measure as having “broadly” strengthened the government’s authority.
In a telephone briefing for reporters on Monday, officials said the administration had set out to resolve a “narrow” technical problem that had called into question whether intelligence officials needed to get a court warrant to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications that happened to pass through American telecommunication switches. But in fact the legislation as enacted not only provides that no warrant is needed in such a situation but also goes further, in giving the administration discretion to eavesdrop on foreign communications that might involve Americans.
The officials who participated in the briefing spoke on condition of anonymity, saying only that doing so would allow them to talk more freely.
One more time we see just how boldly the Bush administration is willing to lie. Some anonymous officials, probably including Stephen Hadley, had an a conference call to challenge the NY Times.
Eric Lichtblau, who wrote this article, basically discounts what the anonymous White House official said. When he wrote "But in fact....", Lichtblau was intimating that what he heard wasn't based on facts. In other words, the anonymous Bush sources lied and misled. You won't hear or read those actual words from any reporter -- and the Bushies know that. Instead, most of the White House press corps will dutifully report what they heard, even if they know it's a lie. That's what these reporters always do.
Think Progress has the video of Glenn Greenwald discounting the Bush administration's position:
Today on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, former constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald, who blogs at Salon.com, debunked the White House’s claim that the new FISA law requires “court approval” prior to spying on an “individual located in the United States.” In fact, as Greenwald explained, the law now allows the government to “listen to our conversations, read our e-mails, with no connection to terrorism, with no proof that anyone has ever done anything wrong” — without judicial oversight.
I'd trust Glenn Greenwald over any Bush administration official -- anonymous or not -- any day on any issue, but especially on this.
No warrants necessary. And the Dems let him have it. (NYT):
President Bush signed into law on Sunday legislation that broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.
Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government’s ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.
They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.
...Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas, if the government conducted the surveillance inside the United States....
By changing the legal definition of what is considered “electronic surveillance,” the new law allows the government to eavesdrop on those conversations without warrants — latching on to those giant switches — as long as the target of the government’s surveillance is “reasonably believed” to be overseas.
For example, if a person in Indianapolis calls someone in London, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on that conversation without a warrant, as long as the N.S.A.’s target is the person in London.
"All [the government have] to do is claim that the real target is the foreigner and that a 'significant purpose' of the eavesdropping is related to intelligence gathering. Not terrorism, mind you, just intelligence generically. What's more, they don't even have to go to the minimal trouble of making that claim to a court. They can just make it and approve it themselves. So that's that. The government is now legally allowed to monitor all your calls overseas with only the most minimal oversight. But don't worry. I'm sure they'll never misuse this power. They never have before, have they?"
