THE USUAL SUSPECTS

The President lied and broke federal laws, and the Justice Dept roars into action. . . that is, trying to find the person who told us about it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123000538.html

[NB: You can see what’s coming – more subpoenas for reporters to reveal their sources, a shift from the scandal of what Bush did to the scandal of leaking national security secrets, and an active effort to minimize the Plame leaks as trivial by comparison.]

More: http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17698664%255E401,00.html
[Uh-huh] THE White House said overnight it had no role in the Justice Department's decision to investigate the leaking of classified information indicating that President George W. Bush authorised a secret government wiretap program. . . "The Justice Department undertook this action on its own, which is the way it should be," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said in Crawford, Texas. . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_digbysblog_archive.html#113596695875284669
[Digby] I assume this also means that nobody from the White House will be able to comment in any way since there is an ongoing investigation.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007892.php
[Steve Benen] In other words, Bush circumvented the law with warrantless searches, but it's the whistleblower who's facing a criminal investigation.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013544.html
[ACLU] "President Bush broke the law and lied to the American people when he unilaterally authorized secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens. But rather than focus on this constitutional crisis, Attorney General Gonzales is cracking down on critics of his friend and boss. Our nation is strengthened, not weakened, by those whistleblowers who are courageous enough to speak out on violations of the law. . . To avoid further charges of cronyism, Attorney General Gonzales should call off the investigation. Better yet, Mr. Gonzales ought to fulfill his own oath of office and appoint a special counsel to determine whether federal laws were violated."

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_digbysblog_archive.html#113598741763750833
[Charles] Krauthammer just said that he needs to see a case of abuse before he is convinced that the leakers in the illegal NSA spying case are whistle blowers. . . Considering the history, "trust us we're only monitoring the bad guys" doesn't pass the smell test. We need real hearings and if we get them Krauthammer may very well get the examples of abuse that he needs.

Paul Krugman’s column this week is a classic (if you want to pay for it)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/year-in-life-of-w.html
A year ago, we didn't know for sure that almost all the politicians and pundits who thundered, during the Lewinsky affair, that even the president isn't above the law have changed their minds. But now we know when it comes to presidents who break the law, it's O.K. if you're a Republican.

The real reason they didn’t want the hassle of going through the FISA court?

http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2005/12/the_enemy_withi.html

Remember the embarrassing moment when General Pace had to correct Donald Rumsfeld’s public misstatement of U.S. policy on torture? Well, don’t you know, they really weren’t disagreeing at all!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007889.php

More on Uzbek torture on behalf of the U.S.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_digbysblog_archive.html#113597154556798415

Pentagon uses forced labor, despite public stance against “human trafficking”

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12976
Three years ago, President Bush declared that he had "zero tolerance" for trafficking in humans by the government's overseas contractors, and two years ago Congress mandated a similar policy. . . But notwithstanding the president's statement and the congressional edict, the Defense Department has yet to adopt a policy to bar human trafficking. . .

20,000 mercenaries working in Iraq?

http://www.harpers.org/HaveGunWillTravel.html

Military action against Iran?

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392783,00.html
According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possible 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission. . . According to DDP, during his trip to Turkey, CIA chief Goss reportedly handed over three dossiers to Turkish security officials that purportedly contained evidence that Tehran is cooperating with Islamic terror network al-Qaida. A further dossier is said to contain information about the current status of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Sources in German security circles told the DDP reporter that Goss had ensured Ankara that the Turkish government would be informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened. The Turkish government has also been given the "green light" to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question.

One thing the Bush administration does well

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/30/152119/13
[Armando] They are very good at defending themselves. . . They are incompetent at defending the country and the Constitution. Because they are incompetent at governing, they must resort to lying and lawbreaking to defend themselves from justified criticism. . .

Something else they do well – take care of their own

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/12/30/13/21/running-government-like-a-business-11/
Since Mr. Bush took office in 2001, the federal government has awarded more than $3 billion in contracts to the President’s elite 2004 Texas fund-raisers, their businesses, and lobbying clients, a Blade investigation shows. In Florida, massive sugar companies and development firms led by Bush Pioneers and Rangers have reaped millions of dollars from government policies, which environmentalists say have sided with sprawl and development over the restoration of the Everglades.

One thing they DON’T do well is manage the country’s finances

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901520.html
Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said yesterday that the United States could be unable to pay its bills in early 2006 unless Congress raises the government's borrowing authority, which is now capped at $8.18 trillion. . .

A few more things they haven’t done well

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_digbysblog_archive.html#113597033432208232
[Digby] I've been thinking about what might be the biggest cock-up of this metaphorical war on terrorism and there are so many that it's hard to limit it to just one. Invading Iraq has to be the grandaddy, but Gitmo, abu Ghraib and letting bin Laden go at Tora Bora rank right up there. . .Making enemies of the entire world wasn't such a great idea. Secret prisons in Europe not so much either. . .

One of the things that has been hard to stomach in recent weeks is the press lapping up the supposed “candor” and “humility” Bush has been showing lately over the origins of the Iraq war. All it took was some disingenuous and oblique references to “mistakes” and “faulty intelligence” to put them all in a forgive-and-forget frame of mind. Bush says, gee, isn’t it too bad that there weren’t any WMD, and the media swoons: HE ADMITTED THERE WEREN’T WMD!

But since this is a plainly established fact, it shouldn’t reflect well on him in any way that it took him this long to admit it. (Moreover, the Bush gang is simultaneously coordinating efforts with groups like Move America Forward, which is STILL pedaling the WMD lie.)

Either way, the point that needs emphasizing is that they knew AT THE TIME that there weren’t WMD and had already decided to go to war anyway – that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” New disclosures on the Downing Street Memos remind us that the decision was made to start a war early, and for other reasons, and everything after that was a charade on how best to sell it, domestically and internationally

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002215.htm

Connect the dots

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1456076
Long lines formed at gas stations in Baghdad on Friday as word spread that Iraq's largest oil refinery had shut down. . .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4569360.stm
Iraqi Oil Minister Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum has been temporarily released from his post amid a dispute over the government's petrol pricing policy. . . He is to be replaced for 30 days by Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1539978.htm
Mr Chalabi, who has been improving relations with Washington after previously falling out with the US administration, was appointed acting oil minister after the incumbent Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum was given leave, the officials say.

A contrary view

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2475
[Swopa] It may be too late to stop the remaining top liberal blogs from running with the story, but everyone needs to step back from the ledge for a moment and chill out. Because of the recent elections, all of the ministers are lame ducks at this point. Besides, as the current deputy prime minister, Chalabi was the old oil minister's boss, so he's not in charge of something he didn't have his hands on before. . . A close look at the story Josh linked to suggests that the "sources" of this news are Chalabi's aides, trying to make it look like their boss is a man of action taking the reins during a crisis. My guess is that his erstwhile partners in the ruling United Iraqi Alliance probably aren't any more impressed by that bit of media grandstanding than they were by his self-promoting trip to Washington last month. . . In fact, it's encouraging to note that Chalabi's high position in the interim government didn't keep Team Shiite from quietly and unceremoniously wiping him off their election slate. If Ahmad gets appointed to run the ministry for the new governing coalition, though, then it'll be okay to freak out.

Woo-hoo! Fun ahead

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S5E92246C
Federal prosecutors and lawyers for Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff are putting the finishing touches on a plea deal that could be announced as early as Tuesday, according to people familiar with the negotiations. . . The plea agreement would secure the lobbyist's testimony against several members of Congress who received favors from him or his clients. . .

Jack Abramoff also schmoozed reporters (not very surprisingly) but for some reason no one is reporting on who they were (thanks to Atrios for the link)

http://bestofbothworlds.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_bestofbothworlds_archive.html#113591882286239921

Tom DeLay thinks his biggest problem is an aggressive prosecutor back in Texas? Think again

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007333.php
[Josh Marshall] Buckle-up your seatbelts. Then go read this Post article on Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Russian arms-and-oil hustlers, a piggy bank called the U.S. Family Network and a whole lot more. . . this is a helluva piece of reporting.

http://www.slate.com/id/2133628
[Michael Brus] The Post's analysis of the U.S. Family Network's tax records reveals that its funding came almost exclusively from a handful of corporations with lobbying ties to Abramoff. Most of the corporations had no interest in the advocacy group's self-described "moral-fitness" agenda but did have an interest in legislation before Congress. Delay, then a member of the House leadership, made fundraising calls for the group from its offices, which at times also housed Delay's political action committee. Despite raising $2.5 million over its five-year existence, the group never had more than one full-time staff member and never did much advocacy.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/31/1441/5887
[Kos] The piece, which appears to be a solid investigative piece by the WaPo (they list seven people who worked on the story), says that there was nothing illegal about the $1 million Russian bribe (contribution). But the money, however laundered, was then used to finance radio attack ads against Democrats? Somehow, that doesn't seem too legal. . . Nor does the fact that the rest of the money was used to subsidize the headquarters of a firm that paid DeLay's wife a salary.

The whole story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001480.html

The Brad Blog, which has always led on electronic voting shenanigans, breaks another story that no one will pay attention to: the machines use illegal, easily-hacked code

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002214.htm
In December, The BRAD BLOG joined newspapers across the country and reported that computer experts in Florida had conclusively proven that the “electronic ballot box” in Diebold optical scan vote counting systems could undetectably alter the results of an election. Within days, California’s Secretary of State reported that the use of banned software affects Diebold’s touch-screen voting system as well, a fact which Diebold has acknowledged. . . This breach of security exploits an inherently insecure feature of the Diebold optical scanners and touch screens known as interpreted code, which the Federal Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) of 1990 and 2002 specifically prohibit. For further details about how Diebold uses interpreted code and why it is banned from use in voting software, please click here.

Does your phone bill include a “war tax”?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6213.html

Bonus item: King George

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,179777,00.html

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:22 AM

 
WORD CHOICE

NSA surveillance violates laws AGAIN (this is the third new story in a week – how many more to come?)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/29/spy.agency.privacy.ap/index.html
NSA inadvertently uses banned 'cookies'

[“Inadvertently”?]

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/nsa-crosses-line-again.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_digbysblog_archive.html#113588910762043392

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003383.html

GST – never heard of it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901585.html
Covert CIA Program Withstands New Furor
The effort President Bush authorized shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to fight al Qaeda has grown into the largest CIA covert action program since the height of the Cold War, expanding in size and ambition despite a growing outcry at home and abroad over its clandestine tactics, according to former and current intelligence officials and congressional and administration sources.

The broad-based effort, known within the agency by the initials GST, is compartmentalized into dozens of highly classified individual programs, details of which are known mainly to those directly involved.

GST includes programs allowing the CIA to capture al Qaeda suspects with help from foreign intelligence services, to maintain secret prisons abroad, to use interrogation techniques that some lawyers say violate international treaties, and to maintain a fleet of aircraft to move detainees around the globe. Other compartments within GST give the CIA enhanced ability to mine international financial records and eavesdrop on suspects anywhere in the world.

Over the past two years, as aspects of this umbrella effort have burst into public view, the revelations have prompted protests and official investigations in countries that work with the United States, as well as condemnation by international human rights activists and criticism by members of Congress.

[“Withstands”?]

http://www.slate.com/id/2133543
[Eric Umansky] The Post points to the agency's preparations for the possibility of a prisoner dying in CIA custody: "One proposal circulating among mid-level officers calls for rushing in a CIA pathologist to perform an autopsy and then quickly burning the body, according to two sources."

It's actually hard to tell if there's much of significance new in the WP's CIA piece. The most noteworthy thing might just be all the insiders who are leaking.

Hey, how’s that self-sufficient Iraqi security force coming along?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/30/international/middleeast/30military.html
G.I.'s to Increase U.S. Supervision of Iraqi Police
American commanders are planning to increase significantly the number of soldiers advising Iraqi police commando units, in part to curtail abuse that the units are suspected of inflicting on Sunni Arabs, a senior commander in Iraq said Thursday. . .

[“Supervision”? or “advising”?]

http://www.slate.com/id/2133543
[Eric Umansky] In terms of the Iraqi commando forces, the NYT says American officials acknowledge it's "unclear whom the units are taking orders from," the government or militia commanders. "The commandos and the public order brigades sort of grew like Topsy, very quickly, without much control, and without much training, but with lots of influence from the Ministry of the Interior and the Sciri-Badr organization," said one U.S. commander. "The exact roles and responsibilities of those units is not clear to us."

The Post also covers the commando development and quotes what seems to be the same U.S. officer extolling the merits of the added advisers for the police. "By hugging the enemy, wrapping our arms around them, we hope to control them," he said.

The NYT says the same U.S. commander quoted earlier about more American advisers for police forces also "confirmed details of a shift to fewer American troops covering more Iraqi ground." The latest mini-draw-down, which the Times doesn't spend much space on, seems limited to central Iraq. The NYT says "Americans are hoping that Iraqi units"—that is, Iraqi army forces, which the U.S. trusts more than the police—"can pick up the slack."

[“Hoping”?]

So much for that much-touted Bush “rebound”

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/29/bush.popularity/index.html

British memos show that U.S. knowingly used information extracted through “outsourced” torture

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/29/13419/922

The memos: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013535.html

Children? http://thismodernworld.com/2578

Rumsfeld admits to “ghost” prisoners

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6120

How we missed Bin Laden

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/29/153133/55
[Larry Johnson] The book the CIA didn't want you to read, JAWBREAKER by Gary Berntsen, is out . . . Your jaw may drop open and hit the floor.

Pentagon spending

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4868
[Holden] A $100,000 military jeep that can't be driven in a war zone? Sweet. . .

Iraq: failure ahead

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/middle-east-and-america-in-2005-how.html
The major developments in the region of 2005 have been momentous, but what is striking is how little the over-all dynamics have changed. . .

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2471
Sunni Arab and secular groups refused Thursday to open discussions with the Shiite religious bloc leading in Iraq's parliamentary elections until a full review of the contested results is carried out. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/29/international/middleeast/29kirkuk.html
The Kurdish parties are completely open about their desire to incorporate Kirkuk into Iraqi Kurdistan.. . .

From a British (not a U.S.) paper, an honest assessment

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article334930.ece
Review of the year: The Bush Administration
Scandal, incompetence - and dark clouds ahead. . .

Why the Democrats are afraid to make a big issue of the worst Presidential abuse of power in a generation (perhaps even longer)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6198.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_digbysblog_archive.html#113589812177657217

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_atrios_archive.html#113589892204137394

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2473

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/12/nsa_surveillance_the_rasmussen_poll_and_framing.php

Alito: the state of play

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/29/21813/563

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/29/101722/88

You’ve heard a lot about this New Orleans scandal. . .

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002705781_katrina27.html
Nearly 50 people have been indicted in a scheme that bilked hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Red Cross program created to put cash into the hands of Hurricane Katrina victims. . .

But not this one. . . I wonder why?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6208.html
At face value, the Supplemental Terrorist Activity Relief Act (or STAR Act), passed shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, was a good idea. Countless businesses were badly hurt by the terrorist attacks, and the STAR Act was a federal loan program designed to help businesses avoid bankruptcy and recover. . .

Republicans and anti-intellectualism: An anti-southern bias?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110007730
Conservatives assume that the Republican Party is by and large conservative. But this party has stood for many and various things in its history. The most recent change occurred in 1964, when its center of gravity shifted to the South and the Sunbelt, now the solid base of "Republicanism." The consequences of that profound shift are evident, especially with respect to prudence, education, intellect and high culture. . .

More: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/29/12032/023

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008740

Shamefully bad journalism department

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/norah-odonnell-are-you-republican.html
[Norah O’Donnell, MSNBC]
O'DONNELL: So, Gary, you say that you knew where Osama bin Laden was. . .

O'DONNELL: Can I ask you, Gary, are you a Democrat?

BERNTSEN: No, I'm a Republican.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/
[“Steno” Sue Schmidt, Washington Post] DeLay, a Christian conservative, did not quite know what to make of Abramoff, who wore a beard and a yarmulke. They forged political ties, but the two men never became personally close, according to associates of both men.

David Broder: I screwed up. But not as badly as THESE guys did

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/AR2005122801152.html

More: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20126

Bonus item: Molly Ivins – funny, scary (thanks to Susan Madrak for the link)

http://www.alternet.org/story/30175/

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 8:25 AM

 
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

Bob Barr, conservative Republican and Clinton nemesis, is fed up with Bush’s lying about domestic spying

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1205/28edbarr.html
Two of the most powerful moments of political déjà vu I have ever experienced took place recently in the context of the Bush administration's defense of presidentially ordered electronic spying on American citizens.

First, in the best tradition of former President Bill Clinton's classic, "it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is" defense, President Bush responded to a question at a White House news conference about what now appears to be a clear violation of federal electronic monitoring laws by trying to argue that he had not ordered the National Security Agency to "monitor" phone and e-mail communications of American citizens without court order; he had merely ordered them to "detect" improper communications.

This example of presidential phrase parsing was followed quickly by the president's press secretary, Scott McLellan, dead-panning to reporters that when Bush said a couple of years ago that he would never allow the NSA to monitor Americans without a court order, what he really meant was something different than what he actually said. . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/28/11522/662

One LITTLE problem

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/12/28/14/52/sidestepped/
The Bush administration’s surveillance policy has failed to make a dent in the war against al Qaeda. . . U.S. law enforcement sources said that more than four years of surveillance by the National Security Agency has failed to capture any high-level al Qaeda operative in the United States. They said al Qaeda insurgents have long stopped using the phones and even computers to relay messages. Instead, they employ couriers.

“The fruit of a poisoned tree”

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007869.php

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008738

If there was a problem with FISA that didn’t allow for quick turnaround of critical warrant applications, whose fault was that? (guess)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/28/72934/250

More: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/28/163334/06

Poll says 64% support NSA searches

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/28/163654/65
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.

Why this is bad polling

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6201.html

Why these are actually BAD numbers for Bush

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/new-domestic-spying-poll-numbers-are.html

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_atrios_archive.html#113581658112544852

On “framing” the issue

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6198.html

Bush admin rips CONSERVATIVE appeals court decision

http://www.slate.com/id/2133455
[Eric Umansky] The NYT and WP reefer the administration, in a brief to the Supreme Court, ripping into an appeals court's ruling that denied the government's attempt to move "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla from military to civilian custody. Calling it an "unwarranted attack on presidential discretion," the government argued that the lower court's decision "defies both law and logic." The court, which had found just a few months ago that Padilla can be held indefinitely, had suggested the White House was looking to move Padilla simply to avoid having his case reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Always a good career move: telling George Bush what he wants to hear

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_digbysblog_archive.html#113580471036456370
[NYRB] Yoo had a hand in virtually every major legal decision involving the US response to the attacks of September 11, and at every point, so far as we know, his advice was virtually always the same— the president can do whatever the president wants.

Scotty’s eventual replacement?

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4863
[The Duffer] Q To follow up on last week, you know that New York Times story that talked about the NSA, and how the government was doing much broader surveillance than the White House has acknowledged. Are you familiar with that story?

MR. DUFFY: Yes, I saw the story. We'll be declining to comment on any specific operational details. . .

Q If I could just follow up on that for a second. In the briefing we had at the White House last -- a week ago, Monday, I think it was General Hayden who said at that time that the technology of the program was such that you could only pick up international calls. And he seemed to suggest at the time that a broader program would not have been technologically possible, even if authorized. Your unwillingness to go repeat that, and not discuss the operational details after the story might be interpreted as suggesting that General Hayden's comment no longer stands. Would that be reasonable?

MR. DUFFY: I don't think so. I pointed back to the briefing on Friday by General Gonzales and also by General Hayden. I have nothing more to add to it. I mean, his comments stand. I'm declining to go into any specific operational aspects of the program because General Hayden and General Gonzales briefed on it and I don't have anything more to say. That's all. . .

Q And one more question. UPI is reporting that the reason why -- let me find it real quick. That the reason -- that the U.S. decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging President Bush at an unprecedented rate.

MR. DUFFY: I'm sorry, can you say that again, Jessica?

Q That the reason U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps was because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.

MR. DUFFY: The President has already addressed how this program was done within the law, and I don't have anything more to add to that. . .

Q When the President said that -- described this program the way he did in his news conference, did he mean to suggest that it is only limited to eavesdropping on ongoing phone calls, or did he not mean to sort of limit it to just that? I mean, the impression that he left was that the program is just about eavesdropping on conversations as they happen.

MR. DUFFY: I'll have to get back to you on that question, Dana. I'll take that.

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4864
Q The New York Times reports today that. . . there's consideration of filing criminal charges against President Bush, himself. Is he prepared to face any possible charges, and what kind of -- the White House must have some sort of reaction to the concern that this could bring this NSA issue into the court and open it up to all sorts of inquiries.

MR. DUFFY: I'd just leave it just where I said, Jessica. The Attorney General, himself, the administration's top legal eagle, explained the legal underpinnings that the administration is basing this program on. And I don't have anything to add to that. We always decline to comment on pending cases. You're asking me to speculate about what may happen in the future, and that's another area where we shy away from.

Q Are you making preparations in the Legal Counsel's Office to defend this in court?

MR. DUFFY: I don't know how to answer that question. So I won't. . .

Q The President publicly acknowledged the NSA wiretapping in his Saturday radio address. But in subsequent news revelations about perhaps broader surveillance, he's chosen not to acknowledge that. Why the difference?

MR. DUFFY: The President discussed what he felt comfortable discussing in the news conference, and this is a highly classified, or was a highly classified program and he felt it necessary to discuss that since it was reported. And that's the decision that he made and the administration made.

Fox News: should the New York Times be charged with treason?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_digbysblog_archive.html#113572961394859263

The Department of Homeland Security is a travesty, and god help them if their lassitude allows another attack

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/AR2005122801515.html
Nearly three years after it was formed, the immense Department of Homeland Security remains hampered by severe management and financial problems. . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/bushs-homeland-security-department.html
A report released Tuesday by 13 members of the House Homeland Security Committee says that nearly three years after the cabinet department's creation, gaps still remain in federal efforts to defend the nation against terrorism - including at ports, borders and chemicals plants.

The department also fails to share alerts and other intelligence quickly with state and local officials, according to the Democrats' report, which analyzes public statements and congressional testimony that outline Bush administration security goals since 2002. . .

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/12/28/14/49/uh-huh-2/
[AP] Meeting notes, released Tuesday by a union representative for federal emergency workers, stated that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told employees that many changes planned after Hurricane Katrina were for publicity purposes.

Chertoff’s spokesman firmly denied he ever made such comments.

The typed notes, purportedly taken by an unidentified official, said Chertoff told the employees the retooling of the Federal Emergency Management Agency “is partially a perception ploy to make outsiders feel like we’ve actually made changes for the better.’’. . .

An apparently little detail, which speaks volumes

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/29/2522/2369
[AP] The three military service chiefs have been dropped in the Bush administration's doomsday line of Pentagon succession, pushed beneath three civilian undersecretaries in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's inner circle. . .[read on]

Interesting? The Nation magazine is praising a “retired U.S. Army colonel who served as chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell” as one of their “Progressives of the Year”

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001164.html

UN: no serious fraud in Iraq vote (well, what else COULD they say?)

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2467

The Kurds: BIG trouble ahead

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/28/102647/79

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/12/sounds-like-slip-kid-to-me.html

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/kurds-plan-to-seize-kirkuk-militarily.html

The Washington Post’s must-read on Jack Abramoff

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/AR2005122801588_pf.html
Jack Abramoff liked to slip into dialogue from "The Godfather" as he led his lobbying colleagues in planning their next conquest on Capitol Hill. In a favorite bit, he would mimic an ice-cold Michael Corleone facing down a crooked politician's demand for a cut of Mafia gambling profits: "Senator, you can have my answer now if you like. My offer is this: nothing."

The playacting provided a clue to how Abramoff saw himself -- the power behind the scenes who directed millions of dollars in Indian gambling proceeds to favored lawmakers, the puppet master who pulled the strings of officials in key places . .

One quibble: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007322.php

Tom DeLay, still angling desperately to get his old job back

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/delay-wants-his-leadership-job-back.html

Ha, ha. They’ll try ANYTHING. . .

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=au34v21Vbtdc&refer=us
Texas' top criminal court agreed to consider U.S. Representative Tom DeLay's motion for a speedy trial on money laundering charges. . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_atrios_archive.html#113586426361338633
Media reports that U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay had convinced the state's highest court to hear his appeal were as widely circulated as they were, well, wrong. . . The erroneous media reports, which the San Antonio Express-News published in a wire story and displayed online, come from DeLay's spokesman, Kevin Madden, in an e-mail sent to reporters Tuesday evening, after courts had closed for the night.

Fascinating story on the origins of the Lincoln Group, the out-of-nowhere outfit who got the Pentagon contract to plant fake news stories in the Iraqi media

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1958479,00.html

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-infowar29dec29,1,1081080.story

Who is behind Move America Forward? And why can’t we find out?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6195.html

Can the Dems retake the Senate and get some real investigative hearings under way?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F6F81226C

Bush team rethinks strategy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/AR2005122801517.html
President Bush shifted his rhetoric on Iraq in recent weeks after an intense debate among advisers about how to pull out of his political free fall. . .

When George Bush “jumped the couch”

http://simplyleftbehind.blogspot.com/2005/12/he-jumped-couch-and-jumped-shark.html
“Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror” [read on]

ACLU: Bush = Nixon

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013530.html

Bonus item: Roger Ailes’ Year in Review Quiz

http://rogerailes.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_rogerailes_archive.html#113574543017063164

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 9:41 AM

 
NO ACCOUNTABILITY

I used to have a friend in college who liked to say, “Don’t ask – because if you ask, they might say no.” This seems to be the Bush gang’s principle for dealing with the FISA court

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html
Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's approval.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined.

The court's repeated intervention in Bush administration wiretap requests may explain why the president decided to bypass the court nearly four years ago to launch secret National Security Agency spying on hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans and foreigners inside the United States, according to James Bamford, an acknowledged authority on the supersecret NSA

http://makeashorterlink.com/?X27B6606C
Federal applications for a special U.S. court to authorize secret surveillance rose sharply after the September 11, 2001, attacks, and the panel required changes to the requests at a even greater rate, government documents show. . . The Justice Department's reports to the U.S. Congress on the surveillance court's activities show that the Bush administration made 5,645 applications for electronic surveillance and physical searches through 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available. In the previous four years, the court received a total of 3,436.

More: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/27/we-did-amend-fisa/

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/27/192739/09

This is not just a lie, but a very stupid lie. We already know the surveillance net was cast much wider than this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051228/pl_nm/security_eavesdropping_dc
In Crawford, Texas, where Bush is spending the holidays, his spokesman, Trent Duffy, defended what he called a "limited program. . . This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner," he told reporters. "These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings, and churches."

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/now-bush-says-he-was-only-spying-on.html
[John Aravosis] Wow, very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches, yet Bush never sought a court order to conduct the snooping because he thought a court wouldn't let him?! Huh?. . .

But there's a larger question. If Bush is now telling the truth about who these people are, then pray tell, what the hell was Bush doing letting hundreds if not thousands of people "who have a history of blowing up trains, weddings and churches" run around free inside the US for the past 4 years?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_atrios_archive.html#113574546085639514
[Atrios] Wow, you'd think the Bush administration would arrest some of these people. . . Wonder why they don't. . .

Grain of salt department: but IF this is true, it is going to be a megaton explosion (thanks to Buzzflash for the link)

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/After_domestic_spying_reports_U.S._spying_1227.html
President Bush and other top officials in his administration used the National Security Agency to secretly wiretap the home and office telephones and monitor private email accounts of members of the United Nations Security Council in early 2003 to determine how foreign delegates would vote on a U.N. resolution that paved the way for the U.S.-led war in Iraq, NSA documents show.

Two former NSA officials familiar with the agency's campaign to spy on U.N. members say then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice authorized the plan at the request of President Bush, who wanted to know how delegates were going to vote. . .

The leaked NSA email detailing the agency's spy tactics against the U.N. was written Jan. 31, 2003 by Chief of Staff for Regional Targets Frank Koza. In the email, Koza asked an undisclosed number of NSA and British intelligence officials to "pay attention to existing non-UN Security Council Member UN-related and domestic comms (home and office telephones) for anything useful related to Security Council deliberations."

The right-wing’s excuses for why Bush shouldn’t have to get a warrant for domestic eavesdropping at all are starting to get PRETTY silly

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008736
“Although the administration could have sought such warrants, it chose not to for good reasons. The procedures under the surveillance act are streamlined, but nevertheless involve a number of bureaucratic steps. Furthermore, the FISA court is not a rubber stamp and may well decline to issue warrants even when wartime necessity compels surveillance. . .”

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008734
“FISA was broken well before 9/11. Was the president to ignore the evident fact that FISA's procedures and strictures were simply incompatible with dealing with the al Qaeda threat in an expeditious manner? Was the president to ignore the obvious incapacity of any court, operating under any intelligible legal standard, to judge surveillance decisions involving the sweeping of massive numbers of cell phones and emails by high--speed computers in order even to know where to focus resources?. . .”

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_digbysblog_archive.html#113574468796228634

Reason #259 not to conduct illegal wiretaps: you have now given every terror suspect a new line of defense at trial

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/politics/28legal.html

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013526.html

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_firedoglake_archive.html#113574479944527929

The fatal flaw in Bush’s reasoning

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6189.html
[Steven Benen] At his end-of-the-year press conference last week, the president hopes to set Americans' minds at ease over his warrantless-search program by emphasizing the international aspect to it. "[I]f you're calling from Houston to L.A.," Bush said, "that call is not monitored."

As it happens, that wasn't actually true. Nevertheless, a reporter on hand for the press conference quickly followed up on the president's response by taking his approach further, asking, "[W]hy not monitor those calls between Houston and L.A.? If the threat is so great, and you use the same logic, why not monitor those calls?"

Bush responded by pointing out that he would use FISA courts to monitor domestic calls if the need arose — which, again, wasn't true. . .

[NB: You see the problem. If the unbounded powers of the Commander in Chief during times of war justify ANY law-breaking the President deems necessary, then why EVER use the FISA court? Why not threaten newspaper editors who publish information deemed “harmful to the war effort” with conviction and imprisonment? Why not screen ALL phone conversations? Why make the search for intelligence dependent on ANY externally-defined parameters at all? Laws, shmaws, there’s a war on, damn it! The implication of Bush’s argument is that the ONLY constraints on Presidential action are self-imposed ones.]

This pretty much sums up the debate. Let it begin

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051228/pl_nm/security_eavesdropping_dc
The domestic-spying order has set off a furious debate over whether the war on terrorism gives Bush a blank check when it comes to civil liberties and whether the president, in fact, broke the law.

Awwww. . . .Is this supposed to make us feel sympathy for him?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/conservative-columnist-says-bush-is.html
[Kathleen Parker, very possibly the dumbest syndicated columnist working today] Staying the course is no one's easy road, and Bush is his own worst enemy some days. He seems tired of his own slogans and platitudes. We won't cut and run. We'll stand down when they stand up. Shift to the left, shift to the right, stand up, sit down, fight, fight, fight. . . In one of his speeches, Bush seemed to lose interest in his own text and didn't bother to complete a sentence about the Iraqi elections. Weary-looking and gray, he has aged dramatically in five years.

[NB: Yeah, me too.]

Is the pressure of repeating the same empty formulas, lies, and evasions day after day getting to Scotty?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3545961.html
Colleagues (on-message) say McClellan has held up well in these difficult months. Others (off-message) say he's had a tough time, has lost hair, gained jowls and looks stressed, especially over the Plame case. . .

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4854
[WP] With the administration moving ahead with plans to renovate the dirty and decaying press room off the West Wing of the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan -- or his replacement, if he steps aside before then -- intends to start briefing the world from historic Jackson Place, across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, as early as July.

Here’s a thought experiment, a fantasy, really: Imagine a country where prisoners are systematically tortured. Imagine a country where after learning these facts there is an immediate call for the responsible official to resign, even though there is no evidence that the official directly ordered or knew about the activities. What place of sanity is this?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6185.html

CIA renditions are being scrutinized more carefully – but only ten are under review

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003376.html
[Laura Rozen] The CIA Inspector General is probing about ten "erroneous" renditions, the AP reports. That is, when the CIA snatched the wrong guy, and flew him to another country to be tortured. As for all the other cases where they managed to snatch the not incorrect guy and flew him to Egypt or wherever for torture, there is no as yet in-house investigation.

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013521.html

I have a colleague, Jan Pieterse, who argues that instability in Iraq, and throughout the Middle East, is not an inadvertent byproduct of poor post-war planning, but was in fact an intended outcome all along. I don’t know about that, but if it WERE intended, they couldn’t have managed things any better

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008732
[Matt Yglesias] Conveniently shrouded by Americans' holiday plans, the political situation in Iraq seems to have unraveled even faster than I would have guessed. Insurgent warfare is back with a vengeance showing that there's not a zero-sum relationship between Sunni political participation and Sunni warfare. Meanwhile, Sunni political leaders regard the results of the recent election as illegitimate and are demanding extra seats in parliament, which the winners are refusing, prompting protests in the streets. Relatedly, The New York Times's Richard Opel thought up a clever way to try and look at the sectarian composition of Iraq's security forces and determined, as had been widely guessed, that Sunni Arabs are largely excluded from the new state apparatus.

The big idea in America, now shared by both Sunni political leaders and our man Iyad Allawi, is that there should be a national unity government. That's a decent suggestion, but it puts us in an awkward position. What if the Shiite parties that won the election refuse? Is America then going to continue to back them in an emerging civil war even though we've previously conceded that we agree with their opponents?

Ah, perfect, just as we planned. . .

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/world/13495329.htm
[K-R] Kurdish leaders have inserted more than 10,000 of their militia members into Iraqi army divisions in northern Iraq to lay the groundwork to swarm south, seize the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and possibly half of Mosul, Iraq's third-largest city, and secure the borders of an independent Kurdistan.

Five days of interviews with Kurdish leaders and troops in the region suggest that U.S. plans to bring unity to Iraq before withdrawing American troops by training and equipping a national army aren't gaining traction. Instead, some troops that are formally under U.S. and Iraqi national command are preparing to protect territory and ethnic and religious interests in the event of Iraq's fragmentation, which many of them think is inevitable.

The soldiers said that while they wore Iraqi army uniforms they still considered themselves members of the Peshmerga - the Kurdish militia - and were awaiting orders from Kurdish leaders to break ranks. Many said they wouldn't hesitate to kill their Iraqi army comrades, especially Arabs, if a fight for an independent Kurdistan erupted. . .

Ahmed Chalabi, once the neo-cons’ hand-picked choice to be head of Iraq. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_25.php#007318
[Josh Marshall] There are so many complicated details of what is happening today in Iraq, as various factions and sectarian groupings vie for position in the aftermath of this month's national election. But one clear and bright spot does stand out -- the utter and seemingly limitless humiliation of Ahmad Chalabi. . . Last week we noted Chalabi's feebler-than-feeble election results, which showed him coming in well under 1% of the national vote and facing a complete shut-out from the new national assembly. . .

The Post also notes that without seat in the Assembly, Chalabi would presumably also not be able to join the government, thus perhaps limiting at least to some degree his ability to preen, pose and posture in the western press.

Hmmm. . . can’t we find a spot for Chalabi somewhere, something face-saving, a place where he can’t do any mischief, and where his close ties to the Bush gang can be turned to advantage? Where could that be?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003374.html
[FT] Meanwhile, Iraqi oil officials quoted by Dow Jones said yesterday that the deputy prime minister Ahmed Chalabi would take over the oil ministry, replacing Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, who has taken a month’s leave. . .

Why the hiatus in the Plame investigation? Jane Hamsher offers some guesses

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_firedoglake_archive.html#113566201645495100
Things sure have been quiet on the Plame front of late. Someone was asking today what I thought it all meant so based on absolutely nothing but intuition and baseless gossip here goes:

1. Luskin either got the boot or has been neutered. He's clearly not talking to the press any more, which is so un-Luskin like that either Karl has fired him or his participation as a witness now necessitates silence. . .

2. The nomination of Viveca Novak's husband to the FEC is nothing if not a giant "f-ck you" to Fitz, and if it happened in say the Gotti organization it would definitely raise the eyebrows of a prosecutor. It's also a big "who's your daddy" moment for Viveca Novak, as she is probably out of a job and now the key defense witness for a man who is now going to be her husband's boss. Those who want to argue they nominated him purely on his merits with no notion of any larger implication? Please. This is Karl Rove we're talking about here.

3. The fact that they felt free to do (2) above means that they know Rove is going to soon to be indicted. With the exception of Victoria Toensig and her squirrelly husband running around calling Fitzgerald an out-of-control prosecutor, Rove has really gone out of his way up until now to refrain from his usual smear tactics and keep on Fitz's good side. That they are no longer troubling to do this means they know the party's over.

4. Fitzgerald has been before the new grand jury several times recently without presenting any new witnesses. I have no clue what he's talking to them about but it would suggest he is presenting information that was previously given to the other grand jury and it's not a new matter. We've been told over and over again that Rover barely escaped the hangman's noose during Round One, so it's not outside the realm of the imaginable to assume his turn is up once again. . .

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013524.html
[Jeralyn Merritt] Viveca's husband is Robert D. Lenhard. His nomination was announced by the White House here. I also find the appointment curious, especially since Mr. Lenhard donated $1,000. to John Kerry in 2004. [Update: A commenter below points out that Lenhard was Harry Reid's choice to fill a Democratic slot on the FEC months ago, as reported last August in the Hill. It's Congressional leadership that picks the nominees, Bush just follows through with the appointment. So scratch that theory.]

The news graybeards agree: don’t blame us!

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/12/28/05/51/12688/
[E&P] NEW YORK Appearing on “Meet the Press” with Tim Russert this week, two broadcast veterans, Tom Brokaw of NBC and Ted Koppel, agreed that the press shouldn’t be faulted too harshly for not questioning more deeply the claims of WMD in Iraq—and declared that Bill Clinton would have gone into Iraq just like George Bush if were still president in 2003.

The press is running out of euphemisms to describe Bush Co. lies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600781.html
White House Prevarications

For some press people, there is no factual misstatement or deception that can’t be reframed as a mere partisan difference of opinion: Exhibit A

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_digbysblog_archive.html#113571146737197402

More: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001163.html

Exhibit B: “media savvy” conservative group runs ads spouting ridiculous and long-discredited Iraq war lies (Saddam DID have WMDs, WAS linked to Al Qaeda, etc). They should be dismissed with derisive laughter. But they know that most of the media coverage will recycle those lies for them, treat them respectfully, and relegate any debate over the facts to he said/she said partisanship. And like clockwork. . . .

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113572887635032543-MBBcaDkXJAQBlIrm5UujD1fj5qw_20061227.html
The television commercials are attention-grabbing: Newly found Iraqi documents show that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, including anthrax and mustard gas, and had "extensive ties" to al Qaeda. The discoveries are being covered up by those "willing to undermine support for the war on terrorism to selfishly advance their shameless political ambitions."

The hard-hitting spots are part of a recent public-relations barrage aimed at reversing a decline in public support for President Bush's handling of Iraq. . . While even Mr. Bush now publicly acknowledges the mistakes his administration made in judging the threat posed by Mr. Hussein, the organization is taking to the airwaves to insist that the White House was right all along.

Similar to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- the advocacy group that helped derail John Kerry's presidential campaign -- Move America Forward has magnified its reach by making small television and radio ad buys and then relying on cable- and local-television news outlets to give the commercials heavy coverage. . .

[NB: Yeah, well, now you can add the Wall Street Journal to the list]

Exhibit C: Ann Coulter, on the Today Show, compares Bush’s domestic spying to the WW II internment of Japanese-Americans (which she thinks was a nifty idea). She understands how the conventions of media “politeness” and “balance” mean that she gets to spew whatever disgusting and outrageous lies come into her head, and she will still be treated seriously and without question

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/lauer-coulter.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-does-nbcs-matt-lauer-not-even.html

More end-of the year awards – don’t miss ‘em!

http://www.thepoorman.net/2005/12/27/yes-virginia-there-really-is-a-john-gibson-now-get-the-hell-away-from-him/
The Chickenhawk of the Year Award. . .
The Fluffy. . .
The Purple Teardrop with Clutched Pearls Cluster. . .
The Soggy Biscuit Award. . .
Wank of the Year. . .
The Palme d’Hair. . .

The Year of Scandals, in review

http://www.portlandphoenix.com/features/other_stories/multi1/documents/05165080.asp

Bonus item: Ho, ho, ho Mr. Frist

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008733
[LAT] As they prepared to send the spending cuts to the floor, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and his GOP lieutenants realized they were headed for defeat unless they secured one more vote. And to get that, Frist had to meet the asking price of one of two GOP senators, Norm Coleman of Minnesota or Gordon H. Smith of Oregon.

Smith vowed not to support the bill unless it was changed so that proposed savings on Medicaid, the federal healthcare program for the poor, were achieved at the expense of drug companies and other providers instead of coming in the form of lower benefits for Medicaid recipients.

Coleman's price for supporting the package was removing from the bill a provision that would have eliminated $30 million in subsidies for sugar beet growers, many of them in his home state.

In the end, sugar farmers got to keep their subsidy and Frist got Coleman's vote.

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:44 AM

 
IT CAN HAPPEN HERE

A slow morning for fresh links, so let me take a moment to expand on something I wrote yesterday, using the word “totalitarian” to describe the Bush regime. Typical leftist hyperbole?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
“Totalitarianism is a typology employed by political scientists, especially those in the field of comparative politics, to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. Totalitarian regimes mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political ideology, and do not tolerate activities by individuals or groups such as labor unions, churches and political parties that are not directed toward the state's goals. They maintain themselves in power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, and widespread use of terror tactics.”

Is there any question that this is the BASIC view of government shared by this administration? Let’s review:

1. One party rule: this is a group that does not accept the basically cyclical nature of political winning and losing. Redistricting, manipulation of voting rules, corruption in the use of voting machines, the “K Street Project,” etc, are all intended to lock in a PERMANENT Republican administration. The fact that they may not succeed doesn’t mean that this isn’t their agenda.

2. Hostility to other points of view: the basic tenet of liberal democracy, of open debate, open contests, and the legitimacy of alternative points of view, is utterly foreign to this group. Dissent is unpatriotic, even treasonous. Religiously-inflected rhetoric labels opposition as immoral, even “evil,” not as legitimate. Administration mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh say openly that their aim isn’t to defeat “liberalism” politically, but to ELIMINATE liberalism as a competing ideology.

3. Domination of civil society: the spread (and government subsidization) of privatized and faith-based alternatives to public institutions in all areas of social welfare, education, health care, and other social services is a long-term project, reinforced by policies to dry up alternative sources of support for institutions not controlled by a conservative agenda.

4. Control of the media: I don’t think this issue even bears elaboration. Planted and fabricated “news” stories, bought and paid for. Reporters with administration loyalties who get special access and leaks to build their careers. Talk radio, and at least one full-time news network that is little more than a government-run propaganda outlet, all work in co-ordinated concert with government talking points. Strict control of information and a degree of secrecy not seen in this country for decades, maybe ever, manifested in active efforts to intimidate and pressure media not to cover certain stories at all.

5. Government surveillance under the auspices of “national security”: ubiquitous, not answerable to courts, highly secretive, and all wrapped in a Big Brother-ish promise to “trust us, because only we can keep you safe.”

6. Use of terror: no, we don’t have widespread secret arrests, arbitrary imprisonment, torture, and a network of gulags domestically (though god help you if you are Muslim and in the wrong place at the wrong time). I’m not a “black helicopter” conspiracy theorist. But clearly this administration DOES do these things internationally. And even that fact has an impact on domestic politics: when Bush, Cheney, et al. say “we will do whatever it takes to keep America safe” (their code for “don’t ask us what we’re doing”) the implied ruthlessness reinforces their “don’t f-ck with us” Tough Guy persona in domestic politics.

7. http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=96&contentid=778
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long as I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000

I’m not trying to be shrill here – but I think the very fact that these observations are even PLAUSIBLE shows that an alarming corner has been turned. Totalitarianism rarely appears as such: it grows rule by rule, piece by piece, each presented as reasonable or “necessary” – especially in times of national anxiety and insecurity. Then one day you wake up and something is gone that you never realized you were losing.

More: http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/27/0648/3479

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600516.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/schell

Bush gang stonewalling Freedom of Information request

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5998

More lies about rendition (thanks to Buzzflash for the link)

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article335226.ece

More on John Yoo: the man who tells Bush just what he wants to hear

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18431

More: http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_firedoglake_archive.html#113560842200656198

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_25.php#007314

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_25.php#007317

Juan Cole: Top ten myths about Iraq

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/top-ten-myths-about-iraq-in-2005-iraq.html

Here, YOU take it. . . .

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2462
[Swopa] In the context of ongoing American plans for a slow-motion withdrawal of some troops from Iraq, the Washington Post reports on our "progress". . . Okay, so you've instituted unsustainable security measures that have crippled the town and infuriated the locals ... and now you're going to hand the whole mess over to an undertrained police force? With a supposedly temporary assist from Moqtada al-Sadr's militia?. . . Gosh, I can't imagine how anything could go wrong with that plan.

Wheels within wheels. Trent Lott (R-MS) threatens not to run for his seat next year, which could cost the GOP control of the Senate. What game is he playing here?

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak26.html

“Pass the popcorn” http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007858.php

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/26/151851/82

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_atrios_archive.html#113561182021411184

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_digbysblog_archive.html#113563358031015804

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_atrios_archive.html#113562232880572905

John McCain’s educational theory

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/27/03024/319
"Let the student decide."

Everything is partisan, eh? Apparently, only “liberals” are concerned when newspapers suppress news stories under government pressure

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_firedoglake_archive.html#113558284855857917

[NB: Well, maybe that's true]

Bonus item: the Biggest Lies of 2005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10578257/site/newsweek/

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:12 AM

 
THREATS TO DEMOCRACY

Wow – ANOTHER major story the Bush gang pressed the news media not to report. I wonder what basis of trust they think they have earned to be making such demands? But wouldn’t that be the final piece of their totalitarian puzzle: buy the good news you want, suppress the bad news you don’t

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/25/23527/569

Poland helps: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1537545.htm
The Polish Government has decided not to make public the results of an inquiry into the possible existence of United States CIA prisons on Polish soil. . . "The report should not be made public," Jan Dziedziczak said. . .

[NB: So, I guess we should take that as a YES, right?]

Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz promised last week that the results of the probe would be made known in a comprehensive fashion. . . "We must probe this affair to its very depths because it does not foster a situation of security in Poland," Mr Marcinkiewicz said at the time. . . "The investigation will completed very quickly, between now and next week. Of course we are going to reveal all the results of this investigation."

[NB: How do you say “horse’s head” in Polish?]

The Sunday column everybody is talking about: Chapman’s no lefty!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0512250256dec25,1,3472167.column
[Stephen Chapman] President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't think he should be constrained by their intentions.

He attacked Al Gore for trusting government instead of the people, but he insists anyone who wants to defeat terrorism must put absolute faith in the man at the helm of government. . . But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What's good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors.

Even people who should be on Bush's side are getting queasy. David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, says in his efforts to enlarge executive authority, Bush "has gone too far."

He's not the only one who feels that way. Consider the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in 2002 on suspicion of plotting to set off a "dirty bomb." For three years, the administration said he posed such a grave threat that it had the right to detain him without trial as an enemy combatant. In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed.

But then, rather than risk a review of its policy by the Supreme Court, the administration abandoned its hard-won victory and indicted Padilla on comparatively minor criminal charges. When it asked the 4th Circuit Court for permission to transfer him from military custody to jail, though, the once-cooperative court flatly refused.

In a decision last week, the judges expressed amazement that the administration suddenly would decide Padilla could be treated like a common purse snatcher--a reversal that, they said, comes "at substantial cost to the government's credibility." The court's meaning was plain: Either you were lying to us then, or you are lying to us now.

If that's not enough to embarrass the president, the opinion was written by conservative darling J. Michael Luttig--who just a couple of months ago was on Bush's short list for the Supreme Court. For Luttig to question Bush's use of executive power is like Bill O'Reilly announcing that there's too much Christ in Christmas.

This is hardly the only example of the president demanding powers he doesn't need. When American-born Saudi Yasser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, the administration also detained him as an enemy combatant rather than entrust him to the criminal justice system.

But when the Supreme Court said he was entitled to a hearing where he could present evidence on his behalf, the administration decided that was way too much trouble. It freed him and put him on a plane back to Saudi Arabia, where he may plot jihad to his heart's content. Try to follow this logic: Hamdi was too dangerous to put on trial but not too dangerous to release.

The disclosure that the president authorized secret and probably illegal monitoring of communications between people in the United States and people overseas again raises the question: Why?. . . The government easily could have gotten search warrants to conduct electronic surveillance of anyone with the slightest possible connection to terrorists. The court that handles such requests hardly ever refuses. But Bush bridles at the notion that the president should ever have to ask permission of anyone.

He claims he can ignore the law because Congress granted permission when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. But we know that can't be true. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales says the administration didn't ask for a revision of the law to give the president explicit power to order such wiretaps because Congress--a Republican Congress, mind you--wouldn't have agreed. So the administration decided: Who needs Congress?

What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can't be bothered to earn it.

Lots of Powellian doubletalk in this interview, but THIS I find very revealing – he was the Secretary of State!

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W12B63E5C
[AP] Powell said that when he was in the Cabinet, he was not told that President Bush authorized a warrantless National Security Agency surveillance operation after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

What is the N.S.A.?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/weekinreview/25bamford.html
Thirty years ago, Senator Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat who was then chairman of the select committee on intelligence, investigated the agency and came away stunned.

"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people," he said in 1975, "and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide.". . . He added that if a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A. "could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.". . .

"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge," Senator Church said. "I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003363.html
[Boston Globe] The National Security Agency, in carrying out President Bush's order to intercept the international phone calls and e-mails of Americans suspected of links to Al Qaeda, has probably been using computers to monitor all other Americans' international communications as well, according to specialists familiar with the workings of the NSA. . .

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003367.html
If this is true, as is being reported in multiple papers, then it seems the assistant Attorney General, the President and Vice President have been misleading Congress, as well as the public. Asst. Attorney General William Moschella has this week written Senate and House intelligence committee leaders, "As described by the President, the NSA intercepts certain international communications into and out of the United States of people linked to al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization." But SIGINT experts are telling the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, and the NYT, that the NSA is likely monitoring far more than that. . .

On second reading, what's most interesting in Assistant Attorney General Moschella's recent letter, is that Moschella does not say that he himself is saying that the interception of international communications by US persons was confined to those "linked" to al Qaeda. Moschella is saying, "As described by President Bush, the NSA intercepts...." In other words, Moschella is saying Bush himself owns that statement.

It was Yoo. . .

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013515.html
[Jeralyn Merritt]

• It was Yoo who drafted the infamous memo saying the Geneva Conventions were "seriously flawed" and the U.S. wasn't bound by them in treating al Qaeda prisoners.

• It was Yoo who drafted the memo with this definition of torture:

...it declared that, to be considered torture, techniques must produce lasting psychological damage or suffering "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

• It was Yoo who said the President was not bound by FISA or federal eavesdropping laws when conducting electronic surveillance when one party was outside the United States. Yoo believes in wartime, the constitution gives the president unlimited power.

http://www.slate.com/id/2133341
[Andrew Rice] The WP reefers a profile of John Yoo, who is not exactly doing his part to uphold the image of Berkeley law professors. The author of the now-infamous memos justifying torture of alleged terrorists and eavesdropping on American citizens says that he's not concerned that one newspaper editorial board says his way of thinking "threatens the very idea of America." He tells the paper: "It would be inappropriate for a lawyer to say, 'The law means A, but I'm going to say B because to interpret it as A would violate American values." Perhaps he ought to check on that with the American Bar Association. . .

Yoo’s intellectual dishonesty: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_25.php#007313

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500570.html

Congress passes McCain’s anti-torture amendment, then immediately renders it irrelevant

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013512.html

Iraq on the brink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500173.html
At least five Iraqis and a U.S. soldier were killed in violence in Iraq on Sunday as fresh street protests over election results kept up tension that has soured the mood after a peaceful ballot 10 days ago. . .

President Jalal Talabani, meeting the U.S. ambassador who is mediating in efforts to transform the newly inclusive parliament into a viable government, urged Sunni leaders to join a new, broader coalition. Otherwise there would be no peace, he warned.

Disappointed Sunni and secular parties have demanded a rerun of the December 15 election and threatened to boycott parliament, a move that could damage U.S. hopes of forging a consensus that can keep Iraq from breaking up in ethnic and sectarian warfare. . .

Talabani said: "Without the Sunni parties there will be no consensus government ... without consensus government there will be no unity, there will be no peace."

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/shiites-sunnis-demonstrate-against-one.html
[Juan Cole] Sunni Arab cabinet ministers requested that the United Iraqi Alliance donate 10 of their seats to Sunni Arab candidates. Apparently they hoped such a gesture would mollify Sunni Arab activists who believe that the Shiites unfairly stole the election. The UIA declined, nor would such a gesture probably have been legal.

Sunnis rallied again on Sunday against the election outcome, crying fraud, at Baqubah in the northeast and Fallujah west of the capital. In Baqubah after the demonstrations, guerrilla groups engaged local Iraqi police, killing 4 of them and wounding 15.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/25/114842/93
[Georgia10] "We went to a wedding, and it turned into a funeral". . . That is the sentiment of Sunni Arabs in the wake of the Iraq election. Sunni leaders had high hopes when they decided to participate--rather than boycott--the elections. Despite a strong turnout, they received relatively few number of seats in the permanent government, leading many to claim widespread fraud.

The most prominent Sunnis who won the election were disqualified on Friday on suspicions they were high-ranking officials in Saddam's Baath Party. The decision to oust the most prominent Sunni winners has put the whole country on edge. . .

As Ohio goes, so goes the nation?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ney26dec26,1,5753674.story
But the sheer volume of corruption in Ohio, a state that helped decide the 2004 presidential election, offers a testing ground for the public tolerance of corruption as the midterm elections approach. Democrats are sizing up the state as an opportunity to improve their fortunes nationally in 2006. . . Nationally, Democrats are trying to exploit the Republicans' legal and ethical lapses with the chorus of a "culture of corruption.". . .

Jeannie Goletz, a bookkeeper at the shop, says she chooses not to read the stories about Ney because she does not want to believe they are true. She says the good things Ney has done for the district should outweigh the negatives, whatever they are. . .

More on the GOP culture of corruption: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003365.html

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:32 AM

 
PEACE ON EARTH

(There, is that so difficult?)

Short postings today, back to the usual tomorrow – Happy Holidays everyone!

Christmas in Baghdad

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/24/195258/22

Expect more of this in the future, as our support for Iraqi troops takes the form of coordinated air strikes rather than troops on the ground

http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/12/the_follies_of_.html

Some of the few Sunni candidates who won in the elections have been thrown out by an Iraqi court -- which will do wonders for raising the Sunni’s enthusiasm about the democracy they were encouraged to participate in

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13476434.htm

FILL IN YOUR OWN SARCASTIC HEADER HERE

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_18.php#007311
[NYT] The commander of American-run prisons in Iraq says the military will not turn over any detainees or detention centers to Iraqi jailers until American officials are satisfied that the Iraqis are meeting United States standards for the care and custody of detainees.

One thing we have learned about Alito is that he has an unbridled view of Executive authority (which is partly why Bush wants him). But this is ridiculous!

Alito’s zeal: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/opinion/24sat1.html

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113543278981605827
In a second memo released yesterday, Judge Alito made another bald proposal for grabbing power for the president. He said that when the president signed bills into law, he should make a "signing statement" about what the law means. By doing so, Judge Alito hoped the president could shift courts' focus away from "legislative intent" - a well-established part of interpreting the meaning of a statute - toward what he called "the President's intent."

As the scope of the domestic spying scandal spreads, so does the scope of congressional inquiry

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/politics/25wiretap.html

Gone fishing

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6175.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2133339
[Keelin McDonell] The Los Angeles Times leads with experts speculating that the National Security Administration's domestic spying program may be far greater than the few hundred wiretaps without warrants President Bush has acknowledged. Although federal law prohibits it, current and former intelligence officials think that the government may be using wholesale surveillance methods like satellites to monitor the U.S.

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-spy25dec25,0,1214433.story

The NSA understands the Fourth Amendment

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/nsa-web-site-says-its-violation-of-4th.html

The White House does not

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/its-constitution-stupid-part-ii.html

Was the story about screening Muslims for nuclear materials a leaked story meant to distract from the wider domestic spying scandal?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_digbysblog_archive.html#113545569921623363

Barron’s, bastion of left-wing thinking, says. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/24/133544/83
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law. . .

Bob Novak acts like a real journalist, breaks the news that the Bush gang KNEW there weren’t WMD -- thanks so much for telling us now, Bob

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/23.html#a6456

Hubris scaled back?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-agenda25dec25,1,3923210.story

CIA agents charged with kidnapping in Italy

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-italy24.html

A case study of lobbying, influence-buying, and cobbled-together companies scrambling to scoop up big bucks from the pile of money being thrown at “national security”

http://www.slate.com/id/2133339
[Keelin McDonell] [T]he Post profiles longtime KY. Rep. Harold "Hal" Rogers, who became the first chair of the House Appropriations homeland security subcommittee two years ago. Chronicling the congressman's ties to a company that eventually received a fat contract from the Transportation Security Administration, the piece notes that Rogers's experience "illuminate[s] the intersection of politics, money and homeland security in the rush to make the nation safer since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." And how has Rogers been so successful earmarking cash for his projects? A companion piece notes his "white hair and smooth-as-bourbon mountain accent."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/24/172212/77
[Jonathan Singer] The issues raised in this extended article (which I recommend you read in full) do not necessarily point to illegal behavior by any involved. Indeed, the current campaign finance laws all but encourage leaders of industry and unions to dump significant campaign contributions on individual members of Congress with whom they have a close relationship. That said, it would be wrong to mistake this veneer of separation between campaign contributions and Congressional favors for a real wall between the two.

Pay-to-play politics is not something Republicans invented. . . Nevertheless, the current Republican hegemony in Washington, coupled with the aggressive "K Street Project" tactics of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have created a situation in which it seems necessary to donate substantial campaign contributions to committee and subcommittee chairmen in order to advance legislation. . .

Bonus item: Be grateful for ALL you are given

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:18 AM

 
IT’S NOT PARANOIA IF YOU’RE RIGHT

Getting angry yet?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/12/23/wiretaps_said_to_sift_all_overseas_contacts/
The National Security Agency, in carrying out President Bush's order to intercept the international phone calls and e-mails of Americans suspected of links to Al Qaeda, has probably been using computers to monitor all other Americans' international communications as well, according to specialists familiar with the workings of the NSA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html
The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said. . . As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said. . .

One outside expert on communications privacy who previously worked at the NSA said that to exploit its technological capabilities, the American government had in the last few years been quietly encouraging the telecommunications industry to increase the amount of international traffic that is routed through American-based switches. . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/23/205554/28

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007846.php

Still more warrantless searching: but don’t worry, it’s just the Muslims

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113536762212732582

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/23/145015/29

[NB: And this – "The targets were almost all U.S. citizens," says the source. "A lot of us thought it was questionable, but people who complained nearly lost their jobs.”]

The simple, inescapable problem with the Bush rationale for unbounded Executive power

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113535623324015949
[Glenn Greenwald] The issue is not whether the President has this authority to eavesdrop without a warrant but whether it is legal for him to do in the face of Congressional laws which make it a crime to do so. And none of the authorities they cite conclude that the President has such a royal power. Not one. . . Marty Lederman has a superb and crystal clear post on precisely this issue. Even if one assumes to be true the dubious proposition that the President possesses inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless surveillance on American citizens, that does not mean that it is legal for him to do so in violation of a criminal statute enacted by Congress. . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/24/24844/808

Will Bush be sued? http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/12/23/nsa/

Top twelve media myths about Bush’s warrantless spying policies (they had too many to stop with ten)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002

Lovely

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562528/site/newsweek/
[Newsweek] Bush’s defense of his phone-spying program has disturbing echoes of arguments once used by South Africa’s apartheid regime. Why Americans should examine the parallels. . .

Jack Cafferty

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113537201087133834
"You know what? He's in big trouble, and I can't wait for the hearings to start."

Alito: are we ever going to get to the point where his lying has real consequences?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051203/news_1n3alito.html
[December 3] Seeking to tamp down a furor over his views on abortion rights, Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito told the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday that his "personal views on a woman's right to choose" would not affect his judicial decisions. . . Attorney General Alberto Gonzales described Alito as "someone who comes to the bench with an open mind and no personal agenda."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/23/115247/70
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote in a June 1985 memo that the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion should be overturned, a finding certain to enliven January's confirmation hearings. In a recommendation to the solicitor general on filing a friend-of- court brief, Alito said that the government "should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled."

In trouble? http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.1247711/k.68B3/A_Nomination_in_Trouble.htm

And yet, this is the issue that will probably kill his nomination

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/23/115247/70
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito defended the right of government officials to order domestic wiretaps when he worked for the Reagan Justice Department, documents released Friday show.

He advocated a step by step approach to strengthening the hand of officials in a 1984 memo to the solicitor general. The strategy is similar to the one that Alito espoused for rolling back abortion rights at the margins.

The release of the memo by the National Archives comes when President Bush is under fire for secretly ordering domestic spying of suspected terrorists without a warrant. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has promised to question Alito about the administration's program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/politicsspecial1/24alito.html
The attorney general should be immune from lawsuits for ordering wiretaps of Americans without permission from a court, Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote in a memorandum in 1984 as a government lawyer in the Reagan administration.

http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/23/194211/92
[Matt Yglesias] Conveniently enough, the White House that thinks it's okay to break the law wants to put a justice on the Supreme Court who thinks official wrongdoing should always go unpunished.

Rumsfeld’s call to reduce troops is less than meets the eye

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/international/middleeast/23cnd-military.html
U.S. Plans Slight Force Cut in Iraq, Rumsfeld Says

[NB: I’m all for bringing them home, but this is a post-election adjustment down to baseline levels that has been predicted for weeks. It would only have been news if they HADN’T done it.]

Here’s the bigger news: how are those “fully trained” Iraqi troops doing?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/23/11304/210
[AP] Meanwhile, gunmen Friday attacked an Iraqi army checkpoint in the city of Adhaim, in religiously and ethnically mixed Diyala province, killing eight soldiers and wounding seventeen, an Iraqi army officer said on condition he not be identified for fear of reprisal.

"There were too many to count," said Akid, a 20-year-old soldier from Diwanayah being treated for gunshot wounds to both thighs. "They tried to kill everybody."

Akid, who would only give his first name for fear of reprisal, said his battalion of about 600 men had already suffered over 250 desertions after a Dec. 3 ambush in Adhaim killed 19 Iraqi soldiers.

"They gave up," he said. "They said, 'The hell with this.'"

Increasing U.S. air strikes, with predictable civilian casualties

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2455

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040319-3.html
[Bush] "And in this new kind of war, civilians find themselves suddenly on the front lines. . . Each of these attacks on the innocent is a shock, and a tragedy, and a test of our will. Each attack is designed to demoralize our people and divide us from one another. And each attack must be answered, not only with sorrow, but with greater determination, deeper resolve, and bolder action. . . "

Lesson #1 of democracy: what do you do after the vote if you lose?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051223/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_051223105056

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_18.php#007307

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/20000-protest-election-fraud-in-iraq.html

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/iraqi-elections-post-election.html

Another congressional Republican under investigation: Jerry Lewis (R-CA)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_18.php#007306

The unbearable lightness of being Scotty

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/12/22/BL2005122200899.html
[Mark Leibovich] "On the Thursday morning after his reelection in November 2004, President Bush bounded unexpectedly into the Roosevelt Room of the White House, where about 15 members of his communications team were celebrating. He just wanted to thank everyone for their hard work on the campaign, he said, before singling someone out.

" 'Is Scotty here? Where's Scotty?' Bush asked, half-grinning. . . " 'I want to especially thank Scotty,' the president said, looking at his aide. 'I want to thank Scotty for saying' -- and he paused for effect. . . .

" ' Nothing .' "

[Dan Froomkin] Leibovich's story about McClellan, the man who "has been credited -- or blamed -- for taking the craft of party-line discipline to new heights, or depths" suggests that his penchant for robotic repetition of meaningless stock phrases is just a matter of following orders.

" 'We've come to understand that no matter how we slice and dice something, Scott's going to stick to the recipe,' says Ken Herman, White House correspondent for Cox News Service. 'I can't think of any topic where on the sixth or seventh iteration of a question we get something different from the original answer. By somebody's measure, that's the definition of doing the job well. Certainly not ours.' . . .

"Several White House reporters say that as much as McClellan is liked personally, the administration has left him with no meaningful freedom from the podium beyond jackhammering that day's message and providing mundane updates. ('The president had a good discussion with a group of Senate Democrats and Republicans earlier today.') It has diminished the daily briefing to a playacting spectacle in which he recites lines while reporters play the part of exasperated inquisitors."

Bubble-boy says 2005 was a GREAT year

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051222-1.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6170.html




The war against Christmas: now EVERYBODY’S doing it

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-does-republican-party-chair-ken.html

Damn, sorry

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/24/31717/786
The UMass Dartmouth student who claimed to have been visited by Homeland Security agents over his request for "The Little Red Book" by Mao Zedong has admitted to making up the entire story. . .

Bonus item: Most outrageous statements of 2005 (Bennett, Robertson, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter . . . and the winner is. . . .)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512230006

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:29 AM

 
ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT

Iraq, post-election, looks as lot like Iraq, pre-election (only worse)

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W31353C5C
[AP] Dozens of Sunni Arab and secular Shiite groups threatened to boycott Iraq's new legislature Thursday if complaints about tainted voting are not reviewed by an international body. . . A representative for former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi described the Dec. 15 vote as "fraudulent" and the elected lawmakers "illegitimate.". . . A joint statement issued by 35 political groups that competed in last week's elections said the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, which oversaw the ballot, should be disbanded. . . It also said the more than 1,250 complaints about fraud, ballot box stuffing and intimidation should be reviewed by international organizations such as the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of the Islamic Conference or the Arab League.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/12/21/EDGU6GAM691.DTL
[Robert Scheer] For the Bush White House, the good news from Iraq just never stops. But the joy that President Bush has expressed over the country's latest election, though more restrained than his infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech, will similarly come back to haunt him.

Soon after Bush spoke of the Iraqi election as "a landmark day in the history of liberty," early returns representing 90 percent of the ballots cast in the Iraq election established that the clear winners were Shiite and Sunni religious parties not the least bit interested in Western-style democracy or individual freedom -- including such extremists as Muqtada al-Sadr, whose fanatical followers have fought pitched battles with U.S. troops.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article334476.ece
[Patrick Cockburn] Iraq is disintegrating. The first results from the parliamentary election last week show the country is dividing between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions. . . Religious fundamentalists now have the upper hand. The secular and nationalist candidate backed by the US and Britain was humiliatingly defeated.

The Shia religious coalition has won a total victory in Baghdad and the south of Iraq. The Sunni Arab parties who openly or covertly support armed resistance to the US are likely to win large majorities in Sunni provinces. The Kurds have already achieved quasi-independence and their voting reflected that.

The election marks the final shipwreck of American and British hopes of establishing a pro-Western secular democracy in a united Iraq. . .

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051222/iraq_game_over.php
[Robert Dreyfuss] The last hope for peace in Iraq was stomped to death this week. The victory of the Shiite religious coalition in the December 15 election hands power for the next four years to a fanatical band of fundamentalist Shiite parties backed by Iran, above all to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). . .

The consequences of SCIRI's victory are manifold. But there is no silver lining, no chance for peace talks among Iraq's factions, no chance for international mediation. There is no centrist force that can bridge the factional or sectarian divides. Next stop: civil war.

There isn't any point in looking for silver linings in the catastrophic Iraqi vote. The likely next prime minister, Adel Abdel Mahdi, is a smooth-talking SCIRI thug. His boss, Abdel Aziz Hakim of SCIRI, is the former commander of the Badr Brigade and a militant cleric who has issued bloodthirsty calls for a no-holds-barred military solution to the insurgency. The scores of secret torture prisons by the SCIRI-led Iraqi ministry of the interior will proliferate, and SCIRI-led death squads will start going down their lists of targets. The divisive, sectarian constitution that was rammed down Iraq's throat in October by the Shiite religious bloc will be preserved intact under the new, "permanent government" of Iraq led by SCIRI.

The Kurds, ensconced in northern Iraq, will retreat further into their enclave, content to proceed step-by-step toward what they hope will be a breakaway rump state. Earlier this year, after the January 31 transitional elections, the Kurds made their deal with the Shiite devil, winning in exchange two vital (for them) points: that Iraq will have a virtually nonexistent central government will power reserved for the provincial regions, and that revenues from future Iraqi oil fields will go to those regions, not to the state. All the Kurds want now is to take over Kirkuk, which they will do with force, violence, and ethnic cleansing aimed at Arab residents of the Kirkuk area.

The Sunnis are already charging vote fraud, threatening to boycott or withdraw from the new assembly, and openly predicting that Iraq will now slide into civil war. There is virtually no combination of political alliances now that can guarantee Sunnis a fair share of power in the new Iraq. Every Sunni leader, from the most militant Baath Party activist to the most conservative Sunni clergyman, knows that a regime led by Hakim's SCIRI bloc will mean war. As a result, proponents of cooperating with the new government will become fence-sitters, and fence-sitters will join the resistance. The insurgency will continue, and possibly strengthen. . .

More: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2451

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/sunnis-seek-negotiations-with-shiite.html

The Department of “Justice” offers a ridiculous justification of Bush’s unfettered right to spy on innocent Americans

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/22/2384/4062

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013499.html

Tom Daschle destroys the Bush gang’s claim that Congress gave Bush “implicit” authorization under its war powers resolution – in fact, it’s quite the opposite

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html
The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post.

Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.

The Justice Department acknowledged yesterday, in a letter to Congress, that the president's October 2001 eavesdropping order did not comply with "the 'procedures' of" the law that has regulated domestic espionage since 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, established a secret intelligence court and made it a criminal offense to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant from that court, "except as authorized by statute." . . . Yesterday's letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, asserted that Congress implicitly created an exception to FISA's warrant requirement by authorizing President Bush to use military force in response to the destruction of the World Trade Center and a wing of the Pentagon. The congressional resolution of Sept. 18, 2001, formally titled "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," made no reference to surveillance or to the president's intelligence-gathering powers, and the Bush administration made no public claim of new authority until news accounts disclosed the secret NSA operation.

But Moschella argued yesterday that espionage is "a fundamental incident to the use of military force" and that its absence from the resolution "cannot be read to exclude this long-recognized and essential authority to conduct communications intelligence targeted at the enemy.". . .

Daschle's article reveals an important new episode in the resolution's legislative history.

As drafted, and as finally passed, the resolution authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons" who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."

Daschle wrote that Congress also rejected draft language from the White House that would have authorized the use of force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States," not only against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007836.php

It’s a simple question

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/to-my-friends-in-media-here-is-only.html
[John Aravosis] The Bush administration simply cannot answer this one question - if time was of the essence, why didn't they conduct the searches and get the warrants after the fact, something that is allowed under the FISA law? They conducted the searches alright, but they never once sought the retroactive warrants. . . They have yet to answer this question, and this is the ONLY QUESTION you need to be immediately focusing on. There is no answer, short of the administration simply wanting to defy the law.

The NYT publishes a piece that could have been drafted out of the WH press office – match the headline and the opening paragraph with the actual content

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/politics/23intel.html
Among Those Told of Program, Few Objected
As members of Congress seek more information about the eavesdropping program authorized by President Bush, their requests are being complicated by the fact that Congressional leaders in both parties acquiesced in the operation. . .

[NB: Huh??!! Read on]

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the committee, released a letter this week that he sent to Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 expressing concern about the program. . .

Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, acknowledged in a statement this week that she had been briefed about the program since 2003. . . Ms. Harman also said, however, that she was "deeply concerned by reports that this program in fact goes far beyond the measures to target Al Qaeda about which I was briefed.". . .

Ms. Pelosi, a former top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who is now the House Democratic leader, has said that she, like Mr. Rockefeller, expressed her concerns in a letter to the administration. But Ms. Pelosi has said that she cannot make the letter public until the administration agrees to declassify it.

Mr. Daschle, in his e-mail message, said he had "expressed my concern during the briefing," rather than in written form, and declined to discuss the timing of his action.

In addition to Ms. Harman, the Democrats who have said they did not express objections when they were briefed on the program include Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, and Bob Graham, the former Democratic senator from Florida who served as Intelligence Committee chairman. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, the former Democratic leader in the House, has not responded to telephone messages requesting comment.

Ms. Harman, Mr. Reid and Mr. Graham have all suggested in recent days that they were not provided with a complete accounting of the program, and that they might have raised objections if they had understood its scope. . .

More: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113531380761879585
[Atrios] . . . the New York Times is so in the tank.

Conservatives keep distancing themselves from Bush policies

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/12/22/domestic_spying_causes_republican_rift.html
"President Bush's claim that he has a legal right to eavesdrop on some U.S. citizens without court approval has widened an ideological gap within his party," the Wall Street Journal reports.

"On one side is the national-security camp, made even more numerous by loyalty to a wartime president. On the other are the small-government civil libertarians who have long held a privileged place within the Republican Party but whose ranks have ebbed since the 2001 terrorist attacks."

"The surveillance furor, at least among some conservatives, also has heightened worries that the party is straying from many of its core principles the longer it remains in control of both the White House and Congress."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/22/133118/19
[Chuck Hagel, R-NE] "Every president, that we know of, has complied with the law (FISA)," Hagel said. "No president is above the law. We are a nation of laws and no president, majority leader, or chief justice of the Supreme Court can unilaterally or arbitrarily avoid a law or dismiss a law. If the vice president holds a different point of view, then he holds a different point of view."

Based on the facts that are out there concerning whether domestic spying abuses were taking place, Hagel said, there was a "breakdown."

"I take an oath of office to the Constitution," he said. "I don't take an oath of office to the vice president, a president or a political party. My obligation and responsibility are to the people I represent and the country I serve. I do what I think is right for the people I represent and the country I serve.". . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_digbysblog_archive.html#113528731411501618
Last night. . . a reader sent me a link to this essay called "Confessions of a Repentant Republican". . .

Americans, with broad bipartisan support, have not only embedded our unambiguous rejection of torture into American law (establishing legal constraints which the Bush administration is now determined to dismantle), but have for generations been in the forefront of establishing such standards worldwide through treaties including the Geneva Conventions.

Similarly, previous generations of Americans - left, right, and center - have been unified in the belief that not only is such conduct essential for the safety of our own captured servicemen and women, but that any nation which does not adhere to its own basic values (regardless of any self-proclaimed virtue) would cease to possess the moral prerequisites for genuine success.

Our present need for "the decent respect for the opinions of mankind" is no less compelling than it was for our founders. But the primary need for realigning our actions with our values is not improved public relations. The most compelling need is, for the benefit of our own society, to reaffirm moral constraints upon our actions, individual and collective, without which the character of our nation will be diminished.

. . . The unifying values implanted by America's founders - values of liberty, non-aggression, and antipathy to authoritarian government; have historically prevailed only despite significant opposition from Americans with less honorable priorities. Indeed, the very eloquence with which Jefferson, Madison, and other founders defended civil liberties and warned repeatedly of the dangers of unrestrained executive power and the pernicious consequences of war and empire is primarily because their views were not universal. Their beliefs in liberty, defended by non-aggressive, anti-imperial foreign policy, and the right of dissent have survived to become the "common ground" of the American civic vision only after bitter and divisive political battles. During such times these cherished principles - now universally claimed (even those whose oppose the substance of their beliefs claim them rhetorically as their own) and taken for granted have not infrequently been severely threatened.

Today the rhetoric of this consensus American vision of liberty and non-aggression remains unscathed. But the substance of the beliefs of our founders (which constitutes the basic common ground of our political compact) is under assault. Certainly no one overtly challenges our commitment to liberty and democracy. Yet we witness proponents of freedom at home and abroad advocating perpetual military occupation, rationalizing permanent detention of American citizens without charges or trial, and those who claim to respect the rule of law remaining silent while administration lawyers concoct methods for the president to evade American legal prohibitions of torture and promote the legal theory that the president has the inherent authority to set aside American law.

Yes, it’s an impeachable offense

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/12/22/impeach/

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0552,ridgeway,71265,2.html

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003357.html

Optional laws

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6156.html
[Steve Benen] The controversy surrounding Bush's warrantless-spying program isn't quite a week old. . To date, my very favorite analysis comes by way of Slate's Dahlia Lithwick, who asked the right questions in a devastating way.

Lithwick details the way in which the nation thought it was bargaining in good faith with the president since 9/11, who "was nodding and smiling and taking what he wanted in secret." It's quite a list of betrayal, culminating in Bush's belief that he has "limitless powers to break the law."

. . . What's the explanation? The Slate piece offers two possibilities — that Bush sees the courts, the Congress, and the American people as inconvenient obstacles that forced him to operate outside legal limits, or that Bush sees the laws as "unfixable," so he won't bother to try and follow them.

Lithwick concludes that "the first possibility is grandiose and depressing. The latter is absolutely breathtaking." Truer words were never spoken.

Guilty of hubris: http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/gwb_the_beloved_leader_/2005/12/hubris_and_the_republican_order.php

Of all the reasons not to conduct warrantless surveillance, here’s another one: the evidence gathered is probably inadmissible at trial (and you wonder why NO major terrorist suspect has been tried and convicted yet?)

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013495.html

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003358.html

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113530920988976556

[NB: Here’s why, I think. First, actually arresting and putting people on trial requires rules of evidence and legal defense – that means the possibility of losing. It’s easier to just keep people locked up in perpetuity. Second, putting evidence under scrutiny in court means disclosing where it came from and how it was obtained, which means scrutiny of torture, coercion, etc. Third, in many cases the evidence is probably quite weak, and far short of the legal burden of proof. Fourth, revealing evidence may also compromise the secrecy of programs and informants they don’t want to “burn.” I think there is a real possibility that NO major terror suspect will ever be tried and convicted.]

How Bush’s new surveillance system works (an informed guess)

http://crookedtimber.org/2005/12/22/a-word-from-the-nerds/

More: http://www.correntewire.com/the_network_architecture_of_treason
[Lambert] Anytime anyone in the administration says that everything remains the same with “wiretaps”, they are parsing words. This has nothing to with “wiretaps.” “Wiretap,” in common usage, is a term of art referring to analog communications. But in above section of the Patriot Act as drafted, it refers to Internet monitoring.

What does it mean to be “linked with” Al Qaeda?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003358.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007837.php
[Kevin Drum] I'd still like to know if there have really been 4,000+ communications from within the U.S. to al-Qaeda members in the past few years. That frankly doesn't seem very likely considering what we know about al-Qaeda, and I suspect that Laura is right to wonder about the precise meaning of the government's definition of "linked with." I have a feeling "affiliated" might have gotten a bit of a semantic working over as well.

It isn’t just terrorists being held in Guantanamo

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003362.html
[Laura Rozen] Deemed "unlawfully detained" by a US court, Chinese Uighurs continue to be held at Guantanamo Bay prison because the US can find no place to send them.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202118.html

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/terrorism_and_its_control_/2005/12/no_wrong_without_a_remedy.php

The Pentagon is breaking the law too

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007838.php
Last week NBC reported that the Pentagon was keeping a database of "suspicious incidents" that included such things as antiwar demonstrations and protests against military recruiters. According to William Arkin, this data is supposed to be purged after 90 days if it turns out to be unrelated to foreign governments or transnational terrorist organizations or illegal activity, but that's not what's happening. . . .

Some Republicans want MORE government secrecy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201662.html
Senate Republicans late Wednesday blocked the authorization bill that guides the country's intelligence programs. It was the first time in 27 years that the bill had failed to pass before the end of the calendar year. . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2133172/
[Eric Umansky] Among other things the anonymous senator is demanding be removed from the bill: language requiring the administration to regularly brief Congress about the CIA's secret prisons. . .

More: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003361.html

Who is John Yoo?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003360.html

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/politics/23yoo.html

What IS the Bush gang’s position on the Patriot Act?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/22/15281/005
[MSNBC, December 16] Mr Bush, in an effort to force passage of the bill, warned on Friday he would veto any temporary extension of the [Patriot] act.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051221-5.html
[Scotty, December 21] Q So you would veto a three-month extension?

MR. McCLELLAN: I expressed our view last week; nothing has changed.

Q Can you tell me what that was again?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can see what I expressed last week. You know very well what it was.

Q Sounds like you're backing down from that.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, nothing has changed in terms of what I said last week.

Q So just say it. Just say --

Q Will you use the word "veto"? Why are you not using the word "veto"?

MR. McCLELLAN: I expressed our views on that last week --

Q But if you still stand by them, why won't you reiterate it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, what I said last week still stands.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051221-5.html
[Scotty, December 21] MR. McCLELLAN: I talked about a short-term extension. And Senator Frist has already said that there's not going to be a short-term extension of three months. And Speaker Hastert has already said it would be irresponsible to move with a short-term extension. . .

Q So you're contention is, by giving in, you feel you will lose it completely? But for three months, though, if the White House would go along with a three-month extension, you believe that would --

MR. McCLELLAN: The Majority Leader in the Senate has said we're not going to do the three-month extension. The Speaker of the House has said it would be irresponsible to do so. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/politics/22patriot.html
[December 22] With time running short on Capitol Hill, the Senate breathed new life late Wednesday night into the moribund USA Patriot Act, agreeing to extend it by six months. . . Along with the Senate Republican leadership, Mr. Bush had repeatedly vowed to oppose any short-term extension of the act, but Republican aides said the White House had signed off on the Senate deal.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-patriot22dec22,0,314184.story
[December 22] Frist, who said Tuesday that he would not agree to a temporary extension, said Wednesday night that he had changed his mind. . . In a written statement late Wednesday, Bush said that he appreciated the Senate's work "to keep the existing Patriot Act in law". . .

http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2005/12/22/ap2411236.html
[December 22] The House passed a five-week extension of the Patriot Act on Thursday and sent it to the Senate as Congress scrambled to prevent expiration of anti-terror law enforcement provisions on Dec. 31. . . Approval for the Feb. 3 deadline came on a voice vote in a nearly empty chamber after Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, refused to agree to a six-month extension the Senate had cleared several hours earlier. . . "It appears to me that Congress understands we've got to keep the Patriot Act in place, that we're still under threat," Bush said before boarding a helicopter for a trip to the presidential retreat at Camp David, Md.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/patriot-act-may-only-be-extended-month.html
[John Aravosis, December 23] Sensenbrenner just totally stuck it to Bush. Bush wanted the bill reauthorized for good, opponents of the bill wanted it reauthorized for three months in order to give the Congress time to examine the reauthorization more closely, especially in light of Bush's illegal domestic spying which was only revealed on the day the Senate was voting on the legislation. So, 3 months would have been a loss for Bush, 6 months gave him something he could save face with - that means one month is a major slap at Bush.

[NB: What this really shows is that the Bush gang’s ability to twist arms and enforce party discipline has reached its limits: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess23dec23,1,2921812.story]

More on the Padilla decision

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_18.php#007303
[Josh Marshall] Reading over the reportage of what happened yesterday, it seems clear that Luttig and the other two members of the panel were less perturbed about civil liberties issues per se (Luttig wrote the decision that allowed the government to hold Padilla indefinitely as an 'enemy combatant') than the administration's cynical willingness to jump from legal argument to legal argument, from one set of facts to another, as the needs of the moment dictate.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113526197383541517
Drum has the best simple explanation of what happened in the Padilla case that I've seen. Shorter Michael Luttig: We f-cked up! We trusted you!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007828.php
[Kevin Drum] It's worth reading Luttig's whole opinion. It's not very long and it pretty clearly indicates that Luttig and his colleagues were seriously pissed. They want to know why the government claimed it was absolutely essential to national security that Padilla be detained indefinitely and then suddenly changed their minds without so much as an explanation. They also want to know why this change of heart came only two business days before Padilla's appeal was scheduled to be filed with the Supreme Court.

And that's not all. They want to know why the government provided them with a completely different set of facts than they provided to the civilian court in Miami. They want to know why the government provided more information about the case to the media than they did to the court. And finally, they want to know why the government did all these things even though they must have known that these actions rather obviously undermined their own public arguments about the importance of the war on terror. . .

In other words, if the government's own actions make it clear that they consider the war on terror to be little more than a game designed to expand presidential power, how can they expect anyone else to take it seriously either?

Taking terrorism seriously: a conversation

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007832.php
[Kevin Drum] This is the most infuriating aspect of George Bush's approach to terrorism: that he treats it as a partisan weapon instead of a genuinely serious business. Chemical plants really are a prime target for terrorists, but Dick Cheney doesn't want to annoy his corporate pals, so EPA's plans to address it get shelved. WMD counterproliferation really is important, but it's not very sexy and doesn't serve any partisan ends since Democrats support it too. So it's ignored and underfunded. Detention of enemy combatants when the enemy is an amorphous group like al-Qaeda is a genuinely vexing issue that deserves a serious bipartisan airing, but the Justice Department treats it like a child's game, inviting barely concealed rage from a conservative judge who thought this was supposed to be life-and-death stuff.

One of the worst results of all this is that because George Bush treats terrorism mostly as a handy partisan club to make Democrats look weak and cement his own support with his corporate base, he's managed to convince a lot of liberals that the whole thing is just a game. Unfortunately, this is pretty understandable. At this point, I don't really blame liberals for feeling that terrorism is little more than a Republican bogeyman that's pulled out whenever the president's poll numbers are down. After all, that's pretty much how Republicans treat it.

But it's not. Osama bin Laden really would like to find a way to kill a whole bunch of us, and we really should all be working to keep that from happening. Maybe someday Karl Rove will figure out that that's more important than bringing back the glory days of William McKinley and his 30-year Republican reign.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113527858042821429
[Atrios] I don't know any liberals who think that the issue of terrorism is just a game. Last I checked it was decadent liberal enclave New York that got hit the worst on 9/11. It's been obvious to some of us since about September 14, 2001 that any hopes that the Bush administration would treat it as anything but a political game were dangerously naive. Terrorism-as-politics has been a game from the beginning. What the hell is a war on terror anyway and who other than crazy people think it can be "won?". . . We need a responsible government to have smart and sensible domestic security policies and improve our human intelligence operations overseas. But, an administration which uses domestic terror alerts for political reasons, outs covert CIA agents, spends its time spying on Quakers and people who want to read Mao's Little Red Book, and does almost none of the very simple and cheap things it could do to improve security of things like chemical plants is, in fact, a complete joke on the issue of terrorism. So, if ever we liberals talk about terrorism as if it were a big joke it's precisely because the political discourse on the issue has long been an obscene farce.

http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/22/154858/72
[Matt Yglesias] Kevin Drum says that given how unseriously the Bush administration takes terrorism, he can hardly "blame liberals for feeling that terrorism is little more than a Republican bogeyman that's pulled out whenever the president's poll numbers are down." Atrios says he doesn't "know any liberals who think that the issue of terrorism is just a game" then re-iterates that George W. Bush is a bad president and press coverage of his administration has been frustratingly inaccurate.

I think this sort of debate tends to further obscure a topic that's only slightly starting to emerge from the post-9/11 taboo on thinking about American priorities -- should counterterrorism really be the organizing principle of American foreign policy? It's worth keeping in mind that as of the morning of September 10, 2001 I doubt many people thought it should be. . . Rather, people -- including people who "took terrorism seriously" -- saw it as one of several important global issues. Ranking alongside, but not necessarily above, the shifting balance of power in Asia, the climate change / AIDS / poverty suite of non-traditional issues, America's relationship with our "near abroad" in Latin America, the integration of Central and Eastern Europe into the transatlantic core, etc., etc., etc.

It seems to me that it was obviously correct to respond to 9/11 in the short-run by massively prioritizing al-Qaeda, and with the war in Afghanistan, etc. that's what we did. But given that, does it really make sense to elevate terrorism above everything else in a semi-permanent way?. . . The administration, I think, hasn't really acted as if it believes counterterrorism should be priority number one. Instead, they seem to be pursuing a rather different effort primarily focused on rogue states while talking a lot about terrorism. At the same time, in a below-the-table way, the Pentagon's budget priorities suggest they're gearing up to fight a war with China. I don't think those are great ideas, but the sense that al-Qaeda isn't really the be-all-and-end-all of what's important seems to me to have a certain wisdom about it.

But the White House is clearly addicted to the crisis atmosphere of fall 2001, and every time it gets a chance it likes to drag the conversation back to that point. This has made it all-but-impossible to have a serious debate about the wisdom of the administration's priorities, and it's even made it very hard to tell what it is they think they're doing. Democrats -- and to some extent even people who aren't politicians -- hesitate to suggest that more of our attention should go elsewhere for fear of getting shouted down, and Republicans feel the need to insist that whatever they think should be done is really part of a master plan to fight terrorism.

The result is a pretty unhealthy situation and a massively unenlightening debate.

Hmmm. . . no terror alerts lately?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_18.php#007304
[Josh Marshall] When was the last time there was a major terror alert? They were something like a regular occurence for the eighteen months or so before the 2004 election. And through 2004 the administration pushed the line that al Qaida was aiming to disrupt the elections themselves. But as near I can tell there hasn't been a single one since election day.

Through 2004, of course, critics of the administration routinely questioned whether the frequency and timing of the various terror alerts were not all or in part for political effect. . . How do we explain what appears to be a night and day difference between the year prior to November 2004 and the year since in terms of terror alerts and scares?

A sick and twisted legislative process: you won’t give us Alaska drilling? We won’t give poor people assistance with rising energy costs

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/12/22/13/02/heat-or-eat/

More garbage buried in the Defense appropriations bill

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=20226
On the same day the Senate passed legislation that cuts public education funding for the first time in a decade, it also voted to establish the first-ever national private school voucher program, as part of the final appropriations measure for the Department of Defense. . .

Part II of the massive DHS/FEMA expose in the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202213_pf.html

Why the press bends over backwards to assuage the Right

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_digbysblog_archive.html#113528170408912995
[Digby] It's quite obvious that the Republicans have staged a quarter century "campaign" to sway media coverage. Now that they are in power they marshall very heavy hitters to lodge complaints and they go right to the top. John Harris and Len Downie admitted last week that high level Republicans and the White House complain all the time and they go out of their way to allay those complaints.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_digbysblog_archive.html#113523196773309374
[Digby] [T]he beltway press corps has conditioned itself to respond only to Republicans. They've trained themselves not take Democrats seriously, either the rank and file who inconvenience them with e-mails they do not want to read, or the leadership they simply disdain. Unpopularity obligates them to criticize Bush at least mildly, but the relief they feel when his numbers edge up a bit is palpable. They don't seem to know this about themselves.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113526529585313939
[Atrios] This really is true. The press really is unable to hear and comprehend press criticism which comes from the left. It's like they're unable to process it. They love parading Bernie Goldberg around endlessly so he can tell them how evil and horribly liberal and rotten they are but will then completely ignore a book like "What Liberal Media?" which had the advantage of containing actual research and not being utterly incoherent.

http://sideshow.me.uk/sdec05.htm#12211215
[Avedon Carol] The so-called "objectivity" we are seeing today is very different from what we saw 30 years ago, for the simple reason that when you refuse to acknowledge that one side is telling the truth while the other is lying, that's not objective. . .

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/122105.html
[Robert Parry] Also note how the mainstream press continues to choke on calling Bush a liar even when the facts are obvious. For instance, the disclosure that Bush signed his order for warrantless wiretaps in 2002 led researchers back to an assurance he made to the American people in a speech in Buffalo, N.Y., on April 20, 2004.

After calling for renewal of the USA Patriot Act, Bush veered off into a broader discussion of wiretaps. “By the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order,” Bush said. “Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

Though a clip of Bush’s statement was carried on network news programs, it was followed by the White House explanation that Bush was only talking about the Patriot Act. The network news reporters presented that claim as the final word on the subject.

But Bush’s wording indicates that he is not talking only about wiretaps under the Patriot Act. He clearly deviates from that discussion when he says “by the way” and adds “any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap.” He then insists that “nothing has changed” when the policy had changed two years earlier.

Fox News: where the news anchors ARE the story

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6155.html
C&L and Newshounds offered terrific coverage last night of Fox News' John Gibson completely losing his mind, on the air, while "debating" Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State on the so-called "war on Christmas." You really have to see it to believe it.

See it: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/21.html#a6426

Kos on the MSM

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/22/154040/00
Maybe I'll write more about this later, but I hate the phrase "mainstream media". What a dumb-ass label. This site gets more visitors than many cable news shows and newspapers. So how are they "mainstream", and this site isn't?. . . If I may posit a neutral (non-political) alternative: the Traditional Media. That's what I'll be using from now on.

Die, die, die, Diebold!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/22/223327/56

Bonus item: Ann Coulter, unfiltered

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220006
"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:57 AM

 
UNDER THE TREE

I guess I’m getting my presents early this year. What a day!

Conservative court rips Bush policies on Padilla

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/politics/22padilla.html
A federal appeals court delivered a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration Wednesday, refusing to allow the transfer of Jose Padilla from military custody to civilian law enforcement authorities to face terrorism charges.

In denying the administration's request, the three-judge panel unanimously issued a strongly worded opinion that said the Justice Department's effort to transfer Mr. Padilla gave the appearance that the government was trying to manipulate the court system to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing the case. The judges warned that the administration's behavior in the Padilla case could jeopardize its credibility before the courts in other terrorism cases.

What made the action by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., so startling, lawyers and others said, was that it came from a panel of judges who in September had provided the administration with a sweeping court victory, saying President Bush had the authority to detain Mr. Padilla, an American citizen, indefinitely without trial as an enemy combatant.

But the judges were clearly angered when the administration suddenly shifted course on Nov. 22, saying it no longer needed that authority because it now wanted to try Mr. Padilla in a civilian court. The move came just days before the government was to file legal papers in Mr. Padilla's appeal to the Supreme Court. The government said that as a result of the shift, the court no longer needed to take up the case. Many legal analysts speculated at the time that the administration's sudden change in approach was an effort to avoid Supreme Court review of the Fourth Circuit ruling.

In the opinion on Wednesday, written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, the court said the panel was denying permission to transfer Mr. Padilla as well as the government's suggestion that it vacate the September decision upholding Mr. Padilla's detention for more than three years in a military brig as an enemy combatant. . . Judge Luttig, a strong conservative judicial voice who has been considered by Mr. Bush for the Supreme Court. . .

[NB: No longer, eh?]

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013482.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007828.php

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003348.html

FISA court furious over Bush circumvention

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326.html
The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.

Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.

"The questions are obvious," said U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah. . . One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court.

[NB: Wow, simply wow: "One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it. . . "For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap," said the official. "They couldn't dream one up."]

Senate coalition forces Patriot Act compromise

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-patriot22dec22,0,314184.story
In a major setback for the White House on a top domestic priority, the Senate on Wednesday passed a six-month extension of the Patriot Act, due to expire Dec. 31, even though President Bush had demanded that most of the law become permanent. . . The move effectively killed a House-Senate compromise that would have made permanent 14 of the 16 provisions of the statute, which gives law enforcement officials sweeping power to track and prosecute suspected terrorists. The House adopted the compromise last week. . . But senators from both parties balked, saying the compromise legislation failed to include enough safeguards of civil liberties and privacy. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/politics/22patriot.html
Along with the Senate Republican leadership, Mr. Bush had repeatedly vowed to oppose any short-term extension of the act. . .

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051221-5.html
Q Scott, would the President veto a three-month extension of the Patriot Act? Is that something you can accept?. . .

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President has already made his views known on that -- I expressed his views last week -- and nothing has changed in terms of our views. That's why it's important for them to go ahead and get this passed now.

Q So you would veto a three-month extension?

MR. McCLELLAN: I expressed our view last week; nothing has changed.

Q Can you tell me what that was again?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can see what I expressed last week. You know very well what it was.

Q Sounds like you're backing down from that.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, nothing has changed in terms of what I said last week.

Q So just say it. Just say --

Q Will you use the word "veto"? Why are you not using the word "veto"?

MR. McCLELLAN: I expressed our views on that last week --

Q But if you still stand by them, why won't you reiterate it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, what I said last week still stands.

Q Which is what?

MR. McCLELLAN: I talked about a short-term extension. And Senator Frist has already said that there's not going to be a short-term extension of three months. And Speaker Hastert has already said it would be irresponsible to move with a short-term extension. . .

Q You have been critical of Democrats in the Senate, but now eight Republicans have joined them in wanting this extension, and it was only four a couple of days ago. There's clearly movement to more Republicans standing in opposition to the President on this. Why not --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think -- let's make it clear. Almost all Republicans in the Senate support this. . . and it's a -- the Senate Democrats are the ones who are pushing -- or playing politics with this issue. . .

Q So you're contention is, by giving in, you feel you will lose it completely? But for three months, though, if the White House would go along with a three-month extension, you believe that would --

MR. McCLELLAN: The Majority Leader in the Senate has said we're not going to do the three-month extension. The Speaker of the House has said it would be irresponsible to do so. It's time to act now and get this done.

Arctic drilling provisions stripped from Defense bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/politics/22cong.html
In a chaotic conclusion to the Congressional year, the Senate blocked an effort on Wednesday to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. . . The crucial vote on Arctic oil drilling was cast as its backers tried to cut off debate on the $453.3 billion Pentagon measure to which it had been attached. But they fell four votes short of the 60 they needed, as two Republicans joined Senate Democrats to thwart Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, a longtime champion of Arctic drilling.

"This has been the saddest day of my life," said Mr. Stevens, 82, as he watched victory slip away again in his 25-year crusade for drilling in the refuge.

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2445
Reactionary Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens claims that his failure to destroy ANWR has left him 'clinically depressed,' and whined that if he didn't get his way in his last vile attempt to stuff the ANWR destruction provision in the defense appropriations bill, he won't seek reelection in '08.

Boo hoo: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008717

Remember this? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/22/AR2005102201040.html

One down note: the horrible budget-cutting compromise passes (with Cheney’s vote)

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008713

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007826.php

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/21/172853/98

Colin Powell on secret, illegal domestic spying

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/21/colin-powell-criticizes-spying-program/
“My own judgment is that — it didn’t seem to me, anyway, that it would have been that hard to go and get the warrants [through FISA]. And even in the case of an emergency, you go and do it [begin surveillance]. The law provides for that. And three days later, you let the court know what you have done, and deal with it that way.”

More Bush lies

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/21/14120/907
In his radio address Saturday, Bush said two of the hijackers who helped fly a jet into the Pentagon -- Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar -- had communicated with suspected Al Qaeda members overseas while they were living in the U.S. . . ."But we didn't know they were here until it was too late," Bush said. "The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after Sept. 11 helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities.". . . [read on!]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122101994.html
President Bush asserted this week that the news media published a U.S. government leak in 1998 about Osama bin Laden's use of a satellite phone, alerting the al Qaeda leader to government monitoring and prompting him to abandon the device. . . The story of the vicious leak that destroyed a valuable intelligence operation was first reported by a best-selling book, validated by the Sept. 11 commission and then repeated by the president. . . But it appears to be an urban myth. . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6147.html

As predicted here, if Congress won’t authorize changes to the spying law, the Bush admin intends to keep doing it anyway!

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113518818916996902

Cheney’s role: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008704

Impeachment: unthinkable in a Republican-controlled Congress, but now it’s politically acceptable to be talked about. What a turnaround

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/001809.html

Meanwhile, the Washington Post won’t poll on public attitudes toward impeachment because THEY have decided that it isn’t realistic

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_digbysblog_archive.html#113523196773309374

Newsweek doesn’t agree

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10561966/
[Howard Fineman] In the first weeks and months after 9/11, I am told by a very good source, there was a lot of wishing out loud in the White House Situation Room about expanding the National Security Agency’s ability to instantly monitor phone calls and e-mails between American callers and possible terror suspects abroad. “We talked a lot about how useful that would be,” said this source, who was “in the room” in the critical period after the attacks.

Well, as the world now knows, the NSA — at the prompting of Vice President Cheney and on official (secret) orders from President Bush — was doing just that. And yet, as I understand it, many of the people in the White House’s own Situation Room — including leaders of the national security adviser’s top staff and officials of the FBI — had no idea that it was happening.

As best I can tell — and this really isn’t my beat — the only people who knew about the NSA’s new (and now so controversial) warrant-less eavesdropping program early on were Bush, Cheney, NSA chief Michael Hayden, his top deputies, top leaders of the CIA, and lawyers at the Justice Department and the White House counsel’s office hurriedly called in to sprinkle holy water on it.

Which presents the disturbing image of the White House as a series of nesting dolls, with Cheney-Bush at the tiny secret center, sifting information that most of the rest of the people around them didn’t even know existed. And that image, in turn, will dominate and define the year 2006 — and, I predict, make it the angriest, most divisive season of political theater since the days of Richard Nixon.

We are entering a dark time in which the central argument advanced by each party is going to involve accusing the other party of committing what amounts to treason. Democrats will accuse the Bush administration of destroying the Constitution; Republicans will accuse the Dems of destroying our security.

Some thoughts on where all of this is headed:

. . . If you thought the Samuel Alito hearings were going to be contentious, wait till you see them now. Sen. Arlen Specter, the prickly but brilliant chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said that the issue of warrant-less spying by the NSA — and the larger question of the reach of the president’s wartime powers — is now fair game for the Alito hearings. Alito is going to try to beg off but won’t be allowed to. And members who might have been afraid to vote against Alito on the abortion issue might now have another, politically less risky, reason to do so.

. . . Arguably the most interesting — and influential — Republicans in the Senate right now are the libertarians. They’re suspicious of the Patriot Act and, I am guessing, pivotal in any discussion of the NSA and others' spy efforts. Most are Westerners (Craig, Hagel, Murkowski) and the other is Sen. John Sununu. He is from New Hampshire, which, as anyone who has spent time there understands, is the Wild West of the East Coast. All you have to do is look at its license plate slogan: “Live Free or Die.” It’ll be interesting to see how other nominal small-government conservatives — Sen. George Allen of Virginia comes to mind — handle the issue.

. . . For months now, I have been getting e-mails demanding that my various employers (Newsweek, NBC News and MSNBC.com) include in their poll questionnaires the issue of whether Bush should be impeached. They used to demand this on the strength of the WMD issue, on the theory that the president had “lied us into war.” Now the Bush foes will base their case on his having signed off on the NSA’s warrant-less wiretaps. He and Cheney will argue his inherent powers and will cite Supreme Court cases and the resolution that authorized him to make war on the Taliban and al-Qaida. They will respond by calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already hauled forth no less an authority than John Dean to testify to the president’s dictatorial perfidy. The “I-word” is out there, and, I predict, you are going to hear more of it next year — much more.

Vote now: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

The profound hypocrisy of “conservatives” lining up to defend a massive expansion of state power

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_digbysblog_archive.html#113520865525186255

http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/they_hate_our_freedoms/

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2443
[Swopa] It's obvious that the Bushites, cornered by their lies and lawbreaking, have fallen back to their first line of defense: "We're doing whatever it takes to protect this country; anyone who disagrees with us is trying to get you blown up by terrorists."

The liberal blogiverse is doing its usual excellent job of dissecting the laws and liebreaking ... but eventually, we're going to have to take on that war-on-terror narrative, aren't we? I mean, they're not going to stop until we make them pay for it.

CNN: Fox News Lite

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008712
Fund: I think it's interesting the Democrats are attacking because people do care about civil liberties. I'm interested that they're attacking before all the facts are in.

PILGRIM: And it certainly seems like a clear stand against the president on terror, a fairly risky move given that any day there could be another attack.

[Greg Sargent] Pilgrim's description of Dem criticism as "a clear stand against the president on terror" is, of course, as unsightly and mindless a regurgitation of GOP talking points as one can imagine.

No, Clinton and Carter DIDN’T do the same thing

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-is-criminal-update-matt-drudge.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/21/8157/6595

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113520136169797478

Shining a light on the National Security Agency

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/politics/22nsa.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007823.php

More secret surveillance

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html
Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war, bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show. . . In glimpses and in glaring detail, the videotape images reveal the robust presence of disguised officers or others working with them at seven public gatherings since August 2004.

Mixed feelings: it’s hard to wish the people of Iraq any more ills, but it is delectable to see the Bush policies over there reaping what they have sown

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2005/12/more_unhappiness_about_the_iraqi_elections.php

Bush’s economic miracle

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/001811.html

A close-up expose of the Department of Homeland Security

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003350.html
[Laura Rozen] This administration is fundamentally not serious about even the most sacred decisions. . . Former Bush EPA director Christie Todd Wittman was on an NPR show tonight with Alan Simpson and Robert Reich talking about this - how policy substance is almost never part of the discussion in the Bush White House, only the partisan political calculus, and how depressing it was -- how ill served the nation is by it.

The full story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102327_pf.html
The Department of Homeland Security was only a month old, and already it had an image problem. . . It was April 2003, and Susan Neely, a close aide to DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, decided the gargantuan new conglomeration of 22 federal agencies had to stand for something more than multicolored threat levels. It needed an identity -- not the "flavor of the day in terms of brand chic," as Neely put it, but something meant to last.

So she called in the branders.

Neely hired Landor Associates, the same company that invented the FedEx name and the BP sunflower, and together they began to rebrand a behemoth Landor described in a confidential briefing as a "disparate organization with a lack of focus." They developed a new DHS typeface (Joanna, with modifications) and color scheme (cool gray, red and hints of "punched-up" blue). They debated new uniforms for its armies of agents and focus-group-tested a new seal designed to convey "strength" and "gravitas." The department even got its own lapel pin, which was given to all 180,000 of its employees -- with Ridge's signature -- to celebrate its "brand launch" that June.

"It's got to have its own story," Neely explained.

Nearly three years after it was created in the largest government reorganization since the Department of Defense, DHS does have a story, but so far it is one of haphazard design, bureaucratic warfare and unfulfilled promises. The department's first significant test -- its response to Hurricane Katrina in August -- exposed a troubled organization where preparedness was more slogan than mission. . .

Happy holidays! Abramoff near plea deal. Fitzgerald nowhere near done yet

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/politics/22abramoff.html
Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist under indictment for fraud in South Florida, is expected to complete a plea agreement in the Miami criminal case, setting the stage for him to become a crucial witness in a broad federal corruption investigation, people with direct knowledge of the case said. . . The terms of the plea deal have not been completed, and the negotiations are especially complicated because they involve prosecutors both in Miami and in Washington, where Mr. Abramoff is being investigated in a separate influence-peddling inquiry. . .

At the same time, prosecutors in Washington have been sifting through evidence of what they believe is a corruption scheme involving at least a dozen lawmakers and their former staff members, many of whom worked closely on legislation with Mr. Abramoff and accepted gifts and favors from him. Although Mr. Abramoff is also in negotiations in that case, it is unclear whether a settlement can be reached in time for both agreements to be announced at once. . .

More on Abramoff: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_18.php#007298

On Plame: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Leak_probe_not_seen_to_end_1221.html
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is not expected to shut down his investigation into the leak of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson when he finishes his inquiry of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's role in the leak, lawyers close to the probe said.

These sources indicated that if a grand jury returns an indictment against Rove it will include -- at the very least -- a charge that he made false statements to Justice Department and FBI investigators when he was first interviewed about his role in the case in October 2003.

Individuals close to the probe say Fitzgerald is still investigating other unnamed White House officials. . .

The investigation is expected to shift back to top officials in the Office of the Vice President, the State Department and the National Security Council, and may even shed some light on the genesis of the Niger forgeries, lawyers close to the case say. The forged documents, cited in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, claimed Iraq sought yellowcake uranium from the African country. It may also reveal how key players in the White House decided to expose Plame's undercover status and top secret front company, Brewster Jennings.

Tom DeLay, first lean and hungry, later fat and sleek. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/21/211021/62
[Tom DeLay, 11/16/1995] The time has come that the American people know exactly what their Representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents?

[Tom DeLay, 12/21/2005] Over the past six years, the former House majority leader or his associates have visited places of luxury most Americans have never seen, often getting there aboard corporate jets arranged by lobbyists and other special interests.

Noblesse oblige

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4840
[WP] Working passengers began lining up their laptops to share the power from a couple of working outlets - particularly the reporters who urgently needed to prepare their articles to transmit during a quick refueling stop in England. . . But when Cheney said his iPod needed to be recharged, it took precedence above all else and dominated one precious outlet for several hours. . .

[Athenae] A semi-serious question: Cheney's playlist. I'm trying to imagine it, but I just can't. The Star Wars Imperial March keeps running through my head and distracting me.

Bonus gifts: two from the Onion

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2444
Rove Implicated In Santa Identity Leak

The recent leak revealing Santa Claus to be "your mommy and daddy" has been linked to President Bush's senior political adviser and deputy chief of staff Karl Rove. . .

U.S. Troops Draw Up Own Exit Strategy

In a striking rebuke of the assertions of the Pentagon and the White House that a swift exit is neither practical nor possible, soldiers of varying rank have outlined a straightforward plan of immediate disengagement, dubbed "Operation Screw This.". . . "I'm familiar with the 'years of occupation to facilitate reconstruction' theory," said Army Spc. Megan Beaulieu. "However, virtually every soldier I know -— including myself —- gives more credence to the successful Dutch and Spanish approach of 'we've done all we can here, let's move out.'". . .

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:12 AM

 
A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT

Awesome

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html
A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program . . . U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation. . . Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Can someone explain to me how this isn’t a flat-out LIE?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113510539379477587
“Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.” [President Bush, 4/20/04]

[NB: I know the current spin from Bush’s defenders is the legalistic excuse that “he was only referring in this context to requirements of the Patriot Act,” but what part of the phrase “any time” don’t they understand?]

More Bush lies: http://www.slate.com/id/2132934/fr/rss/

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/bush_on_wiretap.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-targets21dec21,1,32492.story

As discussed at length here in PBD, we have a little problem. What is “wartime”?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007818.php
[Kevin Drum] Do President Bush's inherent constitutional powers as commander-in-chief give him the authority to override federal law and approve domestic spying by the NSA? That's certainly the justification he provided at Monday's press conference. . . Of course, their argument is not that the president has the inherent power to authorize domestic surveillance anytime he wants, only that he has that power during wartime. And as near as I can tell, that's the elephant in the room that no one is really very anxious to discuss: What is "wartime"? Is George Bush really a "wartime president," as he's so fond of calling himself? Conservatives take it for granted that he is, while liberals tend to avoid the subject entirely for fear of being thought unserious about the War on Terror. But it's something that ought be brought up and discussed openly. . .

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/12/sos.html
[Katherine] We have a President here who is making a claim of unlimited power, for the duration of a war that may never end. Oh, he says it's limited by the country's laws, but they've got a crack legal team that reliably interprets the laws to say that the President gets to do whatever he wants. It amounts to the same thing. . .

September 11 started the war. When will it end? Maybe never. Where is the battlefield? The entire world, including the United States. Who is an enemy combatant? Anyone the President says is an enemy combatant, including a U.S. citizen--no need for a charge, no need for a trial, no need for access to a lawyer. What if they're found not to be an enemy combatant? We can keep them in prison anyway, and we don't have to tell their families they're alive or their lawyers that they were cleared. What can you do to an enemy combatant? Anything you want. Detain him forever, for the rest of his life, because this is a war like any other and we have always been able to detain POWs for the duration of the war. But you don't need to follow the Geneva Conventions, because this is a war like no other in our history. And oh yes--if the President decides that we need to torture a prisoner for the war effort, it's unconstitutional for Congress to stop him. They took that position in an official memo, and they have not backed down from it. They have said it was "unnecessary" but they have never backed down from it.

They are not only entitled to do these things to people; they are entitled to do them in secret. When Congress asks for information about them, they can just ignore it. And they are entitled to actively deceive the public about all this. . . That's the power they claim.

http://blogs.salon.com/0000014/2005/12/20.html#a957
[Scott Rosenberg] In order to understand the nature of the strange constitutional crisis President Bush has dragged the country into through his bizarre extralegal domestic surveillance program, you have to dig into the vaults of your brain's American history storehouse and drag out the word "nullification." The doctrine of nullification, a legal concept that enjoyed a brief moment in the sun in the antebellum South, held that individual states had the power to disregard, or "nullify," federal laws that they didn't like. . .

Today, the Bush administration has been steered into dangerous waters by veterans of the Nixon/Ford era, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who have pursued a decades-long quest to reassert the glories of the imperial presidency they cherished as young men and then saw shamed and dismantled in the aftermath of Watergate. Most Americans at the time concluded from that scandal of executive privilege that absolute power corrupts absolutely; Cheney and Rumsfeld believed instead that Watergate had crippled and emasculated the presidency. 9/11 gave them an opportunity to bring back the good old days of enemies' lists, intelligence-doctoring and (now we know) domestic surveillance -- and even to extend the tradition of the imperial presidency into hitherto unexplored regions of White House-sanctioned torture, indefinite imprisonment without trial, and war without end.

And so we find ourselves entering a period of conflict with peculiar overtones of that "nullification" period. Only now it's not the states attempting to usurp the federal authority; in the Bush version of nullification, it's the Executive Branch that has begun to claim for itself the arbitrary and absolute right to disregard the explicit will of the legislature -- not through the exercise of constitutional veto but through secrecy, legal chicanery and sheer chutzpah. . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2132935
[Daniel Politi] Vice President Dick Cheney defended the program to eavesdrop on conversations by saying that the office of the president needs to have more power because of current circumstances in the world. He said that increasing the president's powers has made America safer. A story in the WP's front-page looks at how this marks the latest chapter in an administration that has always sought to increase the powers of the executive. Those in Bush's White House came to office thinking the power of the presidency has been in decline and they want to make sure it is increased. . .

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001858_pf.html

This is how it starts. . .

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/12/20/16/30/slouching-toward-kristallnacht/
“You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. . .

“Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, everyone is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there will be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, “It’s not so bad” or “You’re seeing things” or “You’re an alarmist.”

“And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.”

I think this is what you would call a False Choice

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/12/20/quotes_of_the_day.html
“None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead.”
-- Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), quoted by The Hill.

Bipartisan group calls for investigation

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2963295C

CONSERVATIVES are talking about impeachment now

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/conservative-scholars-argue-bush’s-wiretapping-is-an-impeachable-offense/

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/wash-times-columnist-president-bush.html
[Bruce Fein, in the Washington Times] President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/20/152310/83

“Glitches.” JUST YESTERDAY, Gonzales assured us that only conversations with Al Qaeda-linked suspects abroad were being surveilled, not domestic-domestic conversations. That lie didn’t even last 24 hours

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/they-were-spying-on-purely-domestic.html

The Bush gang has been working to bend or circumvent FISA requirements all along

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/20/32957/979

18,000

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4833
Q Another question. It's our understanding this power has been used 18,000-plus times. Are we to presume that there are that many al Qaeda agents in this country?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into talking about more than what we've said publicly. . .

More: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113513348430774248

What was the attitude within the NSA toward the surreptitious spying they were being ordered to do?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113510607761974516
A few current and former signals intelligence guys have been checking in since this NSA domestic spying story broke. Their reactions range between mildly creeped out and completely pissed off. . . All of the sigint specialists emphasized repeatedly that keeping tabs on Americans is way beyond the bounds of what they ordinarily do -- no matter what the conspiracy crowd may think. . . "It's drilled into you from minute one that you should not ever, ever, ever, under any f-cking circumstances turn this massive apparatus on an American citizen," one source says. "You. . . don't f-ck with your own people."

More: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002032.html

A hint about what’s really going on

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008691
[Ezra Klein] The emerging consensus is that Bush's program is really a high-tech, wide-net data mining operation. The NSA, either through Echelon or another technology, is intercepting vast quantities of domestic electronic communication data, then subjecting the captured information to computerized analyses on the lookout for patterns, key words, triggers phrases, and other tip offs. In that way, they are spying domestically, but the untargeted nature of the program makes the very concept of a warrant meaningless. . .

[NB: In other words, TIA (“Total Information Awareness”), which was vehemently opposed as soon as it was suggested, simply went underground: http://www.correntewire.com/bringing_you_up_to_speed_on_tia]

Bush calls for investigation into who leaked his illegal spying activities – because, you know, if there’s one thing Bush won’t tolerate, it’s a leaker

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-is-on-anti-leak-rampage-and-press.html

Who, me? http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/and-how-is-karl.html

Condi Rice keeps making a fool of herself

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4831

“Clinton did it first” – another lie, of course

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-gorelick-myth

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

It’s not posted on the WH web site, but apparently Scotty had a rough morning “gaggle” session yesterday

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4832

By the time of the formal afternoon briefing, things had cooled down. . . a bit

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4833
Q Congress defines oversight as "the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations, to have access to records or materials, or to issue subpoenas or testimony from the executive." Which of these powers were members of Congress granted with regard to the NSA surveillance program?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as you just pointed out, Congress is an independent branch of government, and they're elected by their constituents. We briefed and informed members of Congress about this program going back to 2001; more than a dozen times since then we've briefed members of Congress --

Q But briefing isn't power to investigate or issue subpoenas to ask questions. And I'm asking you, which of the powers of oversight were they granted?

MR. McCLELLAN: Congress is an independent branch of government. That's what I just pointed out, Jessica.

Q Which has the right to check the functions of the executive. And these are --

MR. McCLELLAN: They have an oversight role, that's right.

Q Okay, so in what way --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why we thought it was important to brief members of Congress about this vital tool that we're using to save lives and to protect the American people, and why we talked to them about how it is limited in nature and limited in scope.

Q But as you know, members of Congress who were briefed said that they were informed -- yes, briefed, but given absolutely no recourse to formally object, to push back and say, this is not acceptable.

MR. McCLELLAN: They're an independent branch of government.

Q So in what way were they given oversight?

MR. McCLELLAN: They were briefed. And we believe it's important to brief members of Congress, the relevant leaders --

Q Would you also say they were given full oversight?

MR. McCLELLAN: They're an independent branch of government. Yes, they have --

Q Were they given oversight?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, they have oversight roles to play.

Q So they have oversight. So, in what way could they have acted on that oversight?

MR. McCLELLAN: You should ask members of Congress that question.

What’s the point of having press conferences if this is the best the press can do?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512200005

The story from the other day about a student being investigated for checking out a library copy of Mao’s “Little Red Book”? No, it’s not a joke out of The Onion

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/12/another_onion_story_in_the_mainstream_press.php

Other suspicious individuals being investigated by our snoopy government:

Gay law school groups: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/pentagon-anti-terror-investigators.html
According to recent press reports, Pentagon officials have been spying on what they call "suspicious" meetings by civilian groups, including student groups opposed to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel.

Vegans and animal-lovers: http://billmon.org/archives/002350.html
They hate us because of our freedom -- our meat-eating, fur-wearing freedom.

Bush-appointed conservative judge rules against “Intelligent Design” in Dover, PA schools. And he says just what needs saying

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007815.php
First, while encouraging students to keep an open mind and explore alternatives to evolution, [the Board's disclaimer] offers no scientific alternative; instead, the only alternative offered is an inherently religious one, namely, ID. . .

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001715.html
The opinion written by Judge John E. Jones III in the Dover evolution trial is a two-in-one document that offers both philosophical and practical arguments against "intelligent design" likely to be useful to far more than a school board in a small Pennsylvania town. . . Jones gives a clear definition of science, and recounts how this vaunted mode of inquiry has evolved over the centuries. He describes how scientists go about the task of supporting or challenging ideas about the world of the senses -- all that can be observed and measured. And he reaches the unwavering conclusion that intelligent design is a religious idea, not a scientific one.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/20/21351/957
[Georgia10] Having read my share of dry judicial opinions over the years, I can tell you that Judge Jones III's verbal smackdown of "intelligent design" is a welcomed breath of fresh air. His opinion spans 139 pages of pure, razor-sharp analysis. It's beautiful. It's scathing. It's so good I want to wallpaper my dining room with it. Almost.

http://www.slate.com/id/2132935
Experts believe the 139-page decision will become instrumental in future fights over evolution. . .

The full decision: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/kitzmiller_342.pdf

[NB: It really isn’t very complicated, is it? Advocates of ID publicly say it’s a scientific “theory” while in every other context making clear that it is a trojan horse for creationism. When Pat Robertson is praying for ID to be adopted in schools, you know you’re talking about religion and not science.]

Bill Frist is destroying the Senate

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008698
Speaking of Republicans not caring about rules, it's been easy to overlook in the last few days that a major, major parliamentary confrontation is brewing in the Senate over the insertion of ANWR drilling into the defense appropriations bill in contravention of codified Senate procedure. Bill Frist is prepared to go nuclear in just the way he threatened to over judges last spring, by overruling the Senate parliamentarian through a simple majority vote. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59877-2004Dec12.html
"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," [Frist] said in a speech to the Federalist Society. . . "If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this, it's not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back," incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said last week. "I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up."

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-frist-mehlman-continue-to-attack.html
[Republicans] Craig, Murkowski, Sununu and Hagel have been on the end of vociferous attacks by Bush, Frist and Mehlman over the Patriot act, but they are all standing firm. . .

http://www.slingshot.org/2005/12/20/frists-self-serving-phrma-pork/
[David Meyer] At around 11 pm Sunday morning, Senator Bill Frist surreptitiously inserted his liability protections for vaccine manufacturers into the Defense Department conference report. Frist’s actions enraged Republican Dan Burton. . .

These provisions are broad. Incredibly broad. They will require anybody injured by any “drug, biological product or device that is used to mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure a pandemic or epidemic or limit the harm such pandemic or epidemic might otherwise cause” to prove that the harm derived from “willful misconduct” rather than negligence. . . This isn’t just a simple abuse of legislative power, though you should take a look at the conference report’s signature page. And it’s not just typical pork for a campaign contributor. Senator Frist is pushing legislation that will help his own stock portfolio.

http://www.slingshot.org/2005/12/20/the-worthlessness-of-frists-scheme/
Before going any further, I think I should review the problems with Frist’s PhRMA scheme. . .There are process objections. Frist attached it to a Defense Department appropriation, where it’s both irrelevant and unlikely to be considered on the merits. It was attached in conference, contrary to rules preventing consideration of new material.

http://www.slingshot.org/2005/12/20/dems-screwed-in-conference-report/
If you look at the entire signature page, many of the Democrats’ written objections are in the same handwriting. That’s because Frist inserted the provisions after they had signed the report, after 11:00pm.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/21/2457/4136
[Mark Schmitt] In other words, the fate of everything in the Reconciliation bill -- student loan cuts that, according to my colleague Michael Dannenberg will add $551 a year to the burden on middle-class families; $16 billion in Medicaid cuts; changes to welfare that are almost as significant as those passed after four years of high-profile debate in 1996, and much else -- will be decided by 9:10 a.m. tomorrow, that is, today. This is barely 24 hours after the conference report was revealed and shoveled through the House, under a procedure known without irony as "martial law."

Abramoff is negotiating a plea bargain, and a bunch of his associates must have had a very sleepless night

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21abramoff.html

The unbelievably cushy life of Tom DeLay

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000714.html

How did this topic drop down so far in the queue?

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/shiite-religious-parties-dominate-10.html
Shiite Religious Parties dominate 10 of 18 Provinces. . .

I was thinking about this just the other day: whatever happened to the search for the domestic anthrax terrorist?

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2441

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:25 AM

 
SO NOW YOU KNOW

Here, thanks to Alberto Gonzales, is the Bush gang’s two-pronged argument for unbridled Executive authority. First, as Commander-in-Chief he can do pretty much anything he deems necessary. Second, when Congress authorized Bush to go to war, it also authorized him to do whatever it takes (WHATEVER it takes) to win the war

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: . . . The President has authorized a program to engage in electronic surveillance of a particular kind, and this would be the intercepts of contents of communications where one of the -- one party to the communication is outside the United States. And this is a very important point -- people are running around saying that the United States is somehow spying on American citizens calling their neighbors. Very, very important to understand that one party to the communication has to be outside the United States. . .

[NB: Oh, this makes me feel a lot better. Only ONE of the pair being surveilled is a U.S. citizen. And it’s only international calls. Well, fine then!]

What we're trying to do is learn of communications, back and forth, from within the United States to overseas with members of al Qaeda. And that's what this program is about.

Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.

Now, that -- one might argue, now, wait a minute, there's nothing in the authorization to use force that specifically mentions electronic surveillance. Let me take you back to a case that the Supreme Court reviewed this past -- in 2004, the Hamdi decision. As you remember, in that case, Mr. Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who was contesting his detention by the United States government. . . We took the position -- the United States government took the position that Congress had authorized that detention in the authorization to use force, even though the authorization to use force never mentions the word "detention." And the Supreme Court, a plurality written by Justice O'Connor agreed. She said, it was clear and unmistakable that the Congress had authorized the detention of an American citizen captured on the battlefield as an enemy combatant for the remainder -- the duration of the hostilities. So even though the authorization to use force did not mention the word, "detention," she felt that detention of enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield was a fundamental incident of waging war, and therefore, had been authorized by Congress when they used the words, "authorize the President to use all necessary and appropriate force."

For the same reason, we believe signals intelligence is even more a fundamental incident of war, and we believe has been authorized by the Congress. And even though signals intelligence is not mentioned in the authorization to use force, we believe that the Court would apply the same reasoning to recognize the authorization by Congress to engage in this kind of electronic surveillance.

I might also add that we also believe the President has the inherent authority under the Constitution, as Commander-in-Chief, to engage in this kind of activity. . . .

[NB: Then why do you need the other? It doesn't make sense]

Q General, can you tell us why you don't choose to go to the FISA court?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. Our position is that we are not legally required to do, in this particular case, because the law requires that we -- FISA requires that we get a court order, unless authorized by a statute, and we believe that authorization has occurred. . .

Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

[NB: Yes, you read that right – they didn’t go to Congress to change the FISA law because they didn’t think Congress would go along with such an authorization. So, instead, they unilaterally ruled that Congress had IMPLICITLY authorized them, and went ahead and did it anyway.]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/19/171335/30
[Kos] Did you get this? Gonzales says it was okay to spy on Americans without authorization because the war resolution gave them that power. But when asked why they didn't ask for specific congressional authorization, he says, well, Congress wouldn't have given them that power.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_18.php#007285
[Josh Marshall] As near as I can tell, they're actually not arguing that the Afghanistan War Resolution gave them the authority to override whatever laws or constitutional prohibitions exist against these warrantless searches/wiretaps. What they're arguing is that the Resolution affirmed the president's inherent power as commander-in-chief to do these things. . . They really do seem to be arguing that the president's powers as a wartime commander-in-chief are essentially without limits. He's simply not bound by the laws the Congress makes.

Helen! http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4826

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_digbysblog_archive.html#113503496104807390

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/19/9649/0429

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113502806079196430

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113501445300877955
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis) responded to Gonzales' comments in an NBC interview this morning. "This is just an outrageous power grab," he said. "Nobody, nobody, thought when we passed a resolution to invade Afghanistan and to fight the war on terror, including myself who voted for it, thought that this was an authorization to allow a wiretapping against the law of the United States. "There's two ways you can do this kind of wiretapping under our law. One is through the criminal code, Title III; the other is through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That's it. That's the only way you can do it. You can't make up a law and deriving it from the Afghanistan resolution. "The president has, I think, made up a law that we never passed," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.)

Here’s the way Bush put it

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.transcript/
As president and commander in chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article 2 of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it.

And after September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda.

After September the 11th, one question my administration had to answer was, using the authorities I have, how do we effectively detect enemies hiding in our midst and prevent them from striking us again?. . .

[NB: So, the argument goes like this. The authorization to go to war is also authorization to detain people in violation of the rules of habeas corpus or right to trial. The authorization to go to war is also authorization to ignore FISA requirements and spy on innocent U.S. citizens without a court order. The authorization to go to war is also authorization to circumvent Congressional oversight and the courts.

But I guess it’s a very small step from this line of argument to argue that the authorization to go to war is also authorization to establish secret interrogation sites, rendition to torture-friendly countries, and coercive interrogation methods, all in violation of U.S. and international laws. If intelligence gathering is a “fundamental incident of war,” ALL of this is entailed in that vote – and in a “War on Terror” that is unlimited in duration, scope, targets, and objectives, what ELSE will be justified as “necessary to win the war”?]

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008678
[Sam Rosenfeld] To his great, lasting credit, a journalist asked the president directly this morning what limits he thinks exist on his administration's ability to circumvent U.S. law, given the reasoning he has offered in justification of the domestic spying policy. Bush got very testy at this question, and basically said that the existing checks on his ability to circumvent U.S. law consisted of the oath he took to uphold the law and the requirement he honors to inform relevant members of Congress of such policies in classified briefings. Which basically means the only real restriction on the president's ability to aggrandize executive power in the name of fighting terror is the Bible he swore on.

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003313.html
[Laura Rozen] Here's another thing that doesn't make sense from Bush's comments to journalists today about the warrantless, un court supervised spying on Americans. Why should he ever go to the FISA court at all? Since he thinks he has such vast wartime powers to do whatever he wants in violation of statutes and laws, why ever submit to quaint concepts like the rule of law? Why not just shuck the whole thing? Why should he feel any restraint to uphold any part of the FISA law? He and Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo have determined that he has the right to do whatever he feels is necessary in wartime, and the law doesn't matter. So -- what's holding him back? Why is he taking the Chinese menu approach to the law, picking and choosing what he'll abide by, and informing the American public only when the papers get ahold of the news?

The last refuge of scoundrels

http://mydd.com/story/2005/12/19/125912/33
[Scott Shields] it's become clear that the Bush Presidency has officially run off the rails. I say this because I found it stunning the number of times Bush struck out against public debate and government transparency as somehow a bad thing. It was, to my mind, the clearest example yet of Bush's fundamental hostility to the basic idea of accountability.

The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy. . .

. . . an open debate about law would say to the enemy, "Here's what we're going to do." . . .

Again, any public hearings on programs will say to the enemy, "Here's what they do. Adjust."

In other words, everyone needs to shut up and let the executive branch break the law, and if they don't, they're committing treason. No one is asking the President to talk about specifics, so the premise is total garbage, that his critics are somehow trying to force a public debate about each and every phone call the White House wants to listen in on. The debate here is about an ongoing policy. To say that exposure of this program somehow tipped off terrorists that American intelligence may be listening in on their phone calls is to assume that Al Qaeda was somehow unaware of FISA wiretaps. That is patently ridiculous.

There was apparently a lot of laughter during the press conference, according to the transcript. Call me stodgy, but I don't think there's too much humor to be found in extralegal wiretaps, the war in Iraq, or Hurricane Katrina. That said, there was one bit of Bush's press conference that did make me chuckle. Bush tells "an amazing story" about the nascent Iraqi democracy.

We had people, first-time voters -- or voters in the Iraqi election come in to see me in the Oval. They had just voted that day and they came in. It was exciting to talk to people.

And one person said, "How come you're giving Saddam Hussein a trial?"

I said, "First of all, it's your government, not ours."

She said, "He doesn't deserve a trial. You know, he deserves immediate death for what he did to my people."

And it just struck me about how strongly she felt about the need to not have a rule of law, that there needed to be quick retribution, that he didn't deserve it.

And I said to her, "Don't you see that the trial itself stands in such contrast to the tyrant that that in itself is a victory for freedom and a defeat for tyranny, just the trial alone, and it's important that there be rule of law?"

It's amazing to me that there can be such a disconnect in Bush's own head about this. He asks how an Iraqi cannot understand that "it's important that there be rule of law" while simultaneously arguing that the rule of law does not apply to him when it comes to domestic wiretaps. Like I said, it gave me a chuckle, but it really isn't funny.

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6128.html

Bush’s allusions to Congressional consultation and oversight are false: a very small number of people were INFORMED that the program was going forward, with no opportunity for challenge or question

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008687
[Harry Reid] “The President asserted in his December 17th radio address that “leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it.” This statement gives the American public a very misleading impression that the President fully consulted with Congress.

“First, it is quite likely that 96 Senators of 100 Senators, including 13 of 15 on the Senate Intelligence Committee first learned about this program in the New York Times, not from any Administration briefing.

“I personally received a single very short briefing on this program earlier this year prior to its public disclosure. That briefing occurred more than three years after the President said this program began.

“The Administration briefers did not seek my advice or consent about the program, and based on what I have heard publicly since, key details about the program apparently were not provided to me.

“Under current Administration briefing guidelines, members of Congress are informed after decisions are made, have virtually no ability to either approve or reject a program, and are prohibited from discussing these types of programs with nearly all of their fellow members and all of their staff.

“We need to investigate this program and the President’s legal authority to carry it out. We also need to review this flawed congressional consultation system. I will be asking the President to cooperate in both reviews.”

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_digbysblog_archive.html#113502302918980171

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-lied-during-his-press-conference.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/19/191347/88

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/read-rockefellers-letter_b_12580.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/19/22515/649

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003320.html
[NYT] Mr. Bush says Congress gave him the power to spy on Americans. Fine, then Congress can just take it back.

[NB: Here we see the reasoning behind the "two-pronged" argument, I guess. They point to the "implicit" Congressional approval to give their power grab some legitimacy. But even if the Congress revoked that approval, or made clear that they DID want some controls over Presidential power, then the Bush gang could simply revert to the "underlying" Executive authority as having over-riding force anyway.]

Don’t miss this damning Newsweek article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/
[Jonathan Alter] Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. . .

This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974. . .

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

And he might have succeeded. . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-media20dec20,1,3657594.story
But the newspaper held the story for more than a year and only revealed the secret wiretaps last Friday, when it became apparent a book by one of its reporters was about to break the news, according to journalists familiar with the paper's internal discussions.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/19/191250/62
[Thirdparty] The Times - once again - needs to come clean here:
• Was this the only personal discussion between the leadership of the Times and Bush about this story?
• On what basis did the President argue that the story should not be published on Dec. 6th?
• Did the arguments differ from those advanced by the White House a year ago, when the publishing of the article was supposedly postponed due to administration concerns?
• Did the Times make any editorial concessions as a direct result of this Dec. 6th meeting?

Cheney’s lie

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/19/cheney-911/

Oh, by the way. . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2132786
In separate surveillance news, the NYT fronts, and the WP goes inside with, the release of papers that show counterterrorism agents at the FBI have investigated and monitored activist groups, such as PETA and Greenpeace. The documents, released as part of a lawsuit by the ACLU, show how FBI officials gained access to several of these groups by using informants.

Vehement conservative opposition

George Will: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900975.html
For more than 500 years -- since the rise of nation-states and parliaments -- a preoccupation of Western political thought has been the problem of defining and confining executive power. . . Particularly in time of war or the threat of it, government needs concentrated decisiveness -- a capacity for swift and nimble action that legislatures normally cannot manage. But the inescapable corollary of this need is the danger of arbitrary power.

Modern American conservatism grew in reaction against the New Deal's creation of the regulatory state, and the enlargement of the executive branch power that such a state entails. The intellectual vigor of conservatism was quickened by reaction against the Great Society and the aggrandizement of the modern presidency by Lyndon Johnson, whose aspiration was to complete the project begun by Franklin Roosevelt.

Because of what Alexander Hamilton praised as "energy in the executive," which often drives the growth of government, for years many conservatives were advocates of congressional supremacy. There were, they said, reasons why the Founders, having waged a revolutionary war against overbearing executive power, gave the legislative branch pride of place in Article I of the Constitution.

One reason was that Congress's cumbersomeness, which is a function of its fractiousness, is a virtue because it makes the government slow and difficult to move. But conservatives' wholesome wariness of presidential power has been a casualty of conservative presidents winning seven of the past 10 elections.

On the assumption that Congress or a court would have been cooperative in September 2001, and that the cooperation could have kept necessary actions clearly lawful without conferring any benefit on the nation's enemies, the president's decision to authorize the NSA's surveillance without the complicity of a court or Congress was a mistake. Perhaps one caused by this administration's almost metabolic urge to keep Congress unnecessarily distant and hence disgruntled. . .

Not ALL conservatives: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901027.html
[Bill Kristol] This is presumably one reason why President Bush decided that national security required that he not simply follow the strictures of the 1978 foreign intelligence act, and, indeed, it reveals why the issue of executive power and the law in our constitutional order is more complicated than the current debate would suggest. It is not easy to answer the question whether the president, acting in this gray area, is "breaking the law." It is not easy because the Founders intended the executive to have -- believed the executive needed to have -- some powers in the national security area that were extralegal but constitutional. . .

Bush as Lincoln: the debate over Executive authority, particularly in time of war, has a long, long history

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_18.php#007290

[NB: I believe this is a watershed moment, not only in Bush's Presidency, but in the history of the country. The reason for Bush's full-scale assault on any opposition to -- and even any public knowledge about -- this issue is not just about his particular policy on surveillance, or even the wider conduct of the war, but about an underlying theory of Executive power. We know this is a group who NEVER accepted the fundamental principles of accountability and openness in government, and who have cynically used the threat of terror to establish even greater secrecy and centralized control. Now we will see what Congress and the courts will do about this. If they fail to stop it, they will have endorsed an extremely dangerous precedent, compromising the very principles of liberal democracy.]

It won’t happen, but people are seriously talking about impeachment

32% already support it: http://www.hoffmania.com/blog/2005/12/rasmussen_asks_.html

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113503378574659967

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/19/1515212

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/turley-and-dershowitz-bush-committed.html

(Is the reason for the change in rules a change in surveillance technologies?)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/12/20/surveillance/

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_18.php#007286

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_18.php#007289

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007812.php

Well, they wanted a democratic outcome in Iraq, and that’s what they’re getting

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/fundamentalist-shiites-will-dominate.html
In other words, the Shiite fundamentalist parties have won again. The secularists lost badly. Allawi and Chalabi are out of the game. The question is only whether the Shiites align with the Sunnis or the Kurds, or both. . .

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512200266dec20,1,5137025.story
Sunni leaders expressed deep disappointment in the partial results from 11 of the 18 provinces and charged that there had been voter intimidation by the United Iraqi Alliance, the leading Shiite religious bloc that has ties with Iran. . . The poor showing by Sunni candidates was unsettling news to U.S. and Iraqi officials who had hoped that Sunni political engagement would stem the insurgency and help unify a country that is increasingly separated by sectarian tensions.

Saleh Mutlaq, head of one of the two major Sunni lists, said he was resigned to the fact that the Sunnis would win far fewer seats than they wanted. Mutlaq accused the United Iraqi Alliance of sending Shiite militiamen to the polls to hover over voters and said imams at many Shiite mosques told the faithful "they would go to hell if they didn't vote for the UIA.". . . "I want to send a message to the [Bush] administration that this election is going to lead to disaster in Iraq," said Mutlaq, who added that he would boycott the parliament unless Sunnis or secular Shiites were awarded some of the most important ministries, such as interior and defense. "I want the Americans to review this election and cancel it."

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4829
[NYT] The Iraqi Accordance Front, a coalition of three major Sunni Arab groups, rejected those results, warning of ''grave repercussions on security and political stability'' if the mistakes were not corrected. . . If no measures are taken, said Adnan al-Dulaimi, head of the alliance, ''we will demand that the elections be held again in Baghdad ... . If this demand is not met, then we will resort to other measures.''

More: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2435

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2005/12/ugly_election_results_in_iraq.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/19/international/middleeast/19cnd-iraq.html

Why do Republicans have such a problem with the rule of law?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/20/01556/086

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess20dec20,1,1545550.story

Rove indictment?

http://counterpunch.org/leopold12172005.html

The collapse of REPUBLICAN support for Samuel Alito

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003308.html

Now that he’s re-elected, Bush tosses Latino supporters overboard

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/19/134244/94

Bonus item: Heh-heh-heh

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4825
THE PRESIDENT: You asked a multiple-part question.

Q Yes, I did.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for violating the multiple-part question rule.

Q I didn't know there was a law on that. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: There's not a law. It's an executive order. (Laughter.) In this case, not monitored by the Congress -- (laughter) -- nor is there any administrative oversight. (Laughter.)

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 8:01 AM

 
“I AM NOT A LAWYER”

Oh, fun. Watch Condi Rice fumble and stumble her way through an attempt to justify why George Bush gets to violate laws he doesn’t like. Tim Russert does a good job in pinning her down, but he misses the one question that would have sent her excuses spinning into incoherence: if the FISA law is so badly out of date and inadequate, why not propose changes to it, rather than simply (secretly) ignoring it?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10479765/
MR. RUSSERT: Before I get to Iraq, let me turn to the issue on the front page of all the papers, and that's about domestic spying and refer you and our viewers to an article in Friday's New York Times to give it some context: "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts. Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials. Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track down possible `dirty numbers' linked to Al-Qaeda, the officials said. ... The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed constitutional limits on legal searches. `This is really a sea change,' said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. `It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches.'"

The president yesterday confirmed that this operation was under way for the last several years. What is the legal authority? What is the constitutional authority for the president to eavesdrop on American citizens without getting court approval?

SEC'Y RICE: Tim, first much all, the president has authorized – and it's important to talk about what he's actually authorized. He's authorized the National Security Agency to collect information about the activities of a limited number of people with ties to Al-Qaeda so that there is not a seam between the territory of the United States and the territory abroad. . .

The president is acting under his constitutional authority, under statutory authority. I'm not a lawyer, but the president has gone to great lengths to make certain that he is both living under his obligations to protect Americans from another attack but also to protect their civil liberties. . . So in a time when the war on terrorism is not just one in which people carry on activities outside the country but also activities inside the country, the president is drawing on his constitutional authority to protect the country.

MR. RUSSERT: The law is very clear that a person is guilty of an offense unless they get a court order before seeking to wiretap an American citizen. Why did the president not get a court order?

SEC'Y RICE: The FISA is indeed an important source of that authority, and in fact, the administration actively uses FISA. But FISA, in 1970...

MR. RUSSERT: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

SEC'Y RICE: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, exactly. FISA, which came out of 1978 at a time when the principal concern was, frankly, the activities of people on behalf of foreign governments, rather stable targets, very different from the kind of urgency of detection and thereby protection of a country that is needed today. And so the president has drawn on additional authorities that he has under the Constitution and under other statutes.

MR. RUSSERT: What are the other authorities?

SEC'Y RICE: Tim, again, I'm not a lawyer, but the president has constitutional authority and he has statutory authorities.

MR. RUSSERT: But no one's explained that. No one has said what is--in fact, in 1972. . .

SEC'Y RICE: Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: ...President Nixon tried to wiretap American citizens and the Supreme Court ruled he violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans.

SEC'Y RICE: Tim, let's remember that we are talking about the ability to collect information on the geographic territory that is the United States. Some people are American citizens; others are not. What the president wants to prevent is the use of American territory as a safe haven for communications between terrorist operating here or people with terrorist links operating here and people operating outside of the country. . . and so the president under his authorities – he is commander in chief; he needs to protect this country – has authorized this program. But he is also very concerned about civil liberties and it is why there are so many safeguards attached to this program and why, frankly, several members of Congress were briefed.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, the courts very, very seldom turn down a request. He could have gone to a court to make sure that constitutional rights were protected for all American citizens.

SEC'Y RICE: Tim, the circumstances of FISA relate to rather more stable targets, people who are principally acting on behalf of governments. These are stateless networks of people who communicate and communicate in much more fluid ways and where the urgency of detecting where the importance of not letting it happen is far greater than I think anything that would have been envisioned in 1978, before we saw the twin towers and the Pentagon go down.

MR. RUSSERT: Arlen Specter, a Republican, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said this on Friday.

(Videotape, December 16, 2005):

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, (R-PA): It's inexcusable to have spying on people in the United States without court surveillance in violation of our law beyond any question.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Specter then said, "I want to know precisely what they did, how the N.S.A. utilized their technical equipment; whose conversations they overheard; how many conversation they overheard; what they did with the material; what purported justification there was..."

Is Senator Specter entitled to that information?

SEC'Y RICE: Well, I will have to leave it to the president to work with his advisers to determine how to answer the questions that are going to be asked. And I'm sure questions will be asked and answered . . . [It] is the president's obligation within the law and within his constitutional authority to get the information that he needs to detect an attack and to act against it before thousands of people die.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Feingold, the Democrat from Wisconsin said, "I think [President Bush] probably did [break the law], and I think almost every senator of both parties thinks he probably did ... The President doesn't get to decide to make up the laws and to start wiretapping people just because he thinks it's a good idea. ...I think he may have broken the law."

And what Democrats and Republicans in Congress are asking, Madame Secretary, is what is the authority that you keep citing? What law, what statute? Where in the Constitution does it say the president can eavesdrop, wiretap American citizens without a court order?

SEC'Y RICE: Tim, the president has authorities under FISA, which we are using and using actively. He also has constitutional authorities that derive from his role as commander in chief and his need to protect the country. He has acted within his constitutional authority and within statutory authority.

Now, I am not a lawyer. And I am certain that the attorney general will address a lot of these questions but the fact is that the president has an obligation. He took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That means both to protect and defend Americans physically from the kind of attack that we experienced on September 11, and to protect their civil rights and civil liberties and he is doing both. . .

MR. RUSSERT: You expect this to go to the Supreme Court?

SEC'Y RICE: I don't know, Tim, this is not my call.

MR. RUSSERT: Because Republicans, as well as Democrats, are quite upset.

SEC'Y RICE: Tim, I think that everyone should listen to what the president said yesterday. He made a compelling case for why he felt it necessary to use these authorities. . .

MR. RUSSERT: Well, that's why the law – wait a second. That's an important point because the reason the law was created to create a court to expedite this was to adjudicate the balance between civil liberties and national security and the president decided to circumvent that.

SEC'Y RICE: This is a program that is very thoroughly controlled and reviewed and it has been reviewed not just by the White House counsel but by the lawyers of the Justice Department and by the lawyers of the N.S.A., the National Security Agency, and by the inspector general of the National Security Agency, and it has to be reauthorized every 45 days. And the Congress, the congressional leaders, including...

MR. RUSSERT: But those are administration lawyers.

SEC'Y RICE: ...including of the...

MR. RUSSERT: Why not go to an objective court?

SEC'Y RICE: The Congress, including congressional leaders, including leaders of the relevant oversight intelligence committees, have been briefed on this.

MR. RUSSERT: The Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said that she expressed reservations.

SEC'Y RICE: I am not going to comment on specific conversations with congressional leaders but I will say that the president went out of his way to make certain that there--that people were--that these leaders were briefed on the program and the activities that were being undertaken--that were being taken under this program. . .

By the way, that last part is a lie: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/graham-no-reference/

More: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/rice-no-answer/

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_firedoglake_archive.html#113494180529396001

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003294.html

Dick Cheney says, “Out of the way little lady – let me show you how a real Jedi Master of political lying handles these questions”

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/cheney-on-internal-spying-more-lies.html
[In] fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law," Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday. . .

More fun from the Sunday shows: Lindsey Graham (R-SC) can be a little weasel, but he IS a lawyer and he cares about the rule of law. Here is just a snippet

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/18/ftn/main856364.shtml
Senator LINDSEY GRAHAM (Republican, South Carolina; Armed Services Committee): If he has the authority to go around the FISA court, which is a court to accommodate the law of the war of terror, the FISA Act was--created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don't know of any legal basis to go around that. There may be some, but I'm not aware of it. And here's the concern I have. We can't become an outcome-based democracy. Even in a time of war, you have to follow the process, because that's what a democracy is all about: a process.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you're saying he broke the law.

Sen. GRAHAM: I don't know. I don't know what legal basis or statute they're referring to. What statute would give the authority of the president to collaborate with a handful of congressmen and senators not to get a warrant? What executive order or constitutional provision would give the authority of the president to avoid the warrant requirement? There may be some. I just don't know of it. But if there is not any, that's a problem. . .

The bottom line is there is a theme here that's a big disturbing. Remember the debate with Senator McCain about immunity. The administration was pushing to give immunity to interrogators in the field. Well, if you allow the president to make a finding that this is a bad person and these techniques are necessary, the president would have the authority to set aside statutes like the torture statute. If you allow him to make the findings, he becomes the court. So you cannot give any executive, Republican or Democrat, the ability to make findings to set aside statutes that exist or play the role of a court because that becomes a model that other people will adopt when our troops are held by them.. . . Here's what I reject. Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat in the White House, I reject the ability of any president during a time of war to make findings to set aside the torture statute and give blanket immunity to people out in the field because that could come back and hurt our own troops in different scenarios. I reject the idea that any president can sit down with a handful of congressman and deal the courts out if the law requires the court to be involved. It is about the process. It's not about the politics. It is about winning the war, adhering to the values that we're fighting for and you can't set those values aside in the name of expediency. . .

Poor Alberto. He’s going to have to go back before Congress and withstand a terrible sh-tstorm. And he didn’t even get a Supreme Court nomination out of doing it

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/gonzales-january/
[Judd] According to President Bush’s radio address today, as White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales personally approved Bush’s program for warrantless domestic wiretaps. By circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, those wiretaps violated federal law.

In a classified legal opinion, the administration argued the President had the power to order the warrantless search pursuant to his authority as commander-in-chief to wage war against al-Qaeda.

During his confirmation hearings for Attorney General in January 2005, Sen. Russ Feingold asked Gonzales about this precise issue:

SEN. FEINGOLD: I — Judge Gonzales, let me ask a broader question. I’m asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he’s commander in chief? Does he — does he have that power?

After trying to dodge the question for a time, Gonzales issued this denial:

MR. GONZALES: Senator, this president is not — I — it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.

In fact, that was precisely the policy of the President.

The verdict is in, and it’s unanimous: Bush broke the law. Now the question is, What are people going to do about it?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-gets-savaged-in-editorials.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05352/623818.stm

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_digbysblog_archive.html#113495994129509353

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003297.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007800.php

http://www.patriotdaily.com/bm/blog/does-anyone-care-while-ni.shtml

Nancy Pelosi

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_atrios_archive.html#113496863388350716
When I was advised of President Bush’s decision to authorize these activities, I expressed my strong concerns verbally and in a classified letter to the Administration. The Bush Administration, however, made clear that it did not believe that Congressional notification was required and it also did not believe that Congressional approval was required to conduct these activities. . .

I have also been advised by Congresswoman Jane Harman, Ranking Democrat on House Intelligence Committee, that the Bush Administration reversed its decision to brief the full House Intelligence Committee on the details of the activities to which the President referred in his radio address. The refusal to provide the Committee with the information necessary to discharge its oversight responsibilities is reminiscent of an Administration directive in October 2001, which severely restricted the flow of information from the intelligence community to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Congressional and public pressure forced the Administration to rescind that directive and I am confident that a similar result will eventually occur on the NSA surveillance issue. . .

Here is the key question: In the Rovean universe, everything is a political issue, and Repubs will ultimately come down on the side of partisan unity and Dem-bashing. But in this case, it appears, there are a lot of Repubs who really do care about principle and the rule of law – and they will unite with Dems to defend them. If opposing Bush’s unbelievable power grab “puts Democrats in a box,” how many Repubs will climb in that box with them?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700456.html
But in this case, with the Patriot Act renewal on the line, the president's advisers calculated that they should go on the offensive. "This directly takes on the Democrats and puts them in a box -- support our efforts to protect Americans or defend positions that put our nation's security at greater risk," said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss political strategy. "We are confident most Americans support the president's actions."

This and other stories that were put on the spike before the 2004 elections, any one of which would have probably cost Bush his narrow victory. The news media’s shameful complicity

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_firedoglake_archive.html#113488374601111697

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_digbysblog_archive.html#113494279004079137

Bush gave a tree-fell-in-the-forest speech on Iraq last night, one in which he pleads for “patience” and asks people not to give in to “despair.” Oh, man, I went ‘way past despair a long time ago, Mr. President

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/19/politics/19prexy.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bush19dec19,1,5565139.story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/18/AR2005121800801.html
"I have heard your disagreement and I know how deeply it is felt," Bush said. "Yet now there are only two options before our country: victory or defeat."

[NB: Oh, how these Manicheans like to frame every issue as either/or, where one option is to back them without question and the other is to burn in hell]

More lies: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/full-text-of-bushs-speech-so-you-dont.html
“Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. . .”

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/bushs-big-lie-actually-intelligence.html
[Michael] Bush made a very clever lie in his umpteenth speech on Iraq last night. Bush said, "But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong." Actually, the intelligence was RIGHT. Bush just ignored it.

Analysis

http://www.slate.com/id/2132686
[Jay Dixit] The WP says Bush's tone was "subdued" as a result of being "chastened by. . . travails on the battlefield abroad and the political freefall at home." The Wall Street Journal calls it "a somber tone that acknowledged the deeply felt objections of war opponents.". . . The WP news analysis notes that the last time Bush delivered a prime-time speech from the Oval Office, "he expected a decisive victory and gratitude from a liberated people," whereas this time around, he spent much of his time "arguing with those who 'conclude that the war is lost.'" The New York Times news analysis argues that the crux of Bush's new argument is the distinction between "honest critics" and "defeatists" who "give up too early and let terrorists believe they have intimidated 'America into a policy of retreat.'" The NYT sums up Bush's new strategy this way: "Reach out to critics on Iraq, while shoving back—hard—at those who insist that the campaign against terrorism has gone too far."

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/18/212417/33
[Matt Yglesias] Just finished watching the President's speech which was, of course, entirely absurd. Not nearly as absurd, however, as what I heard immediately afterwards on NBC News -- the White House apparently thinks that speech represented a serious effort to engage with opponents of the war and bring us around to the President's view. I sincerely hope that whichever "senior aides" said that to NBC was just lying for spin purposes, because if they think that's what they're actually doing then the people running the country are far more inept than I dared fear. The speech was, like everything else Bush has said on the topic, a nice object lesson in the rhetorical possibilities of the straw man and the false dilemma. As an effort to smear the opposition, it's good work. As a serious argument, it's patronizing and insulting.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_digbysblog_archive.html#113496244025005922
[Digby says it, so I don’t have to] I have one question for the media. Why is everyone so impressed that Bush is taking responsibility for going into Iraq? Has there ever been any question about that? We know he made the decision. He has made a fetish of taking responsibility for doing it. indeed, we watched him do it in defiance of virtually the whole world and half the country. This is not an admission of a mistake.

Likewise, admitting that there were no WMD is like admitting that the sun came up this morning. It's true, yes, but saying it is not "candor" --- it's stating the obvious.

Saying that the intelligence was wrong is not taking responsibility for getting it wrong. We know it was wrong.

These are cheap rhetorical tricks and they fall for it every single time. Some GOP hack hands them a sheet talking up the president's newfound "candor" and they all gobble it up like hungry little baby birds.

Bush’s “Pioneers and Rangers” (leading fundraisers and contributors) seems to have a remarkably high percentage of indicted people on the list. Hmmm. . . . ?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/18/14719/089

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:37 AM

 
IN YOUR FACE

George Bush wants you to know that, yes, he secretly ordered domestic surveillance on innocent Americans, and yes, he considers it within his Constitutional authority to unilaterally set aside existing laws. He also wants you to know that, no, he isn’t going to stop, and he is VERY upset with the media for telling you that he was doing it. This is yet another example of what Josh Marshall calls, unfortunately but accurately, “bitch slap” politics. There, take it and like it – whatarya gonna do about it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/politics/18bush.html
President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he had ordered the National Security Agency to conduct an electronic eavesdropping program in the United States without first obtaining warrants, and said he would continue the highly classified program. . .

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y3B75455C
Often appearing angry in an eight-minute address, the president made clear he has no intention of halting his authorizations of the monitoring activities and said public disclosure of the program by the news media had endangered Americans.

http://www.slate.com/id/2132679/
[Roger McShane] Bush, who made the admission during his "unusually long" weekly radio address, also forcefully criticized senators who voted to block the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Presidential advisers told the Post that "Bush decided to confirm the program's existence -- and combine that with a demand for reauthorization of the Patriot Act -- to put critics on the defensive by framing it as a matter of national security, not civil liberties."

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-yeah-i-did-it-so-what.html
Bush: Yeah, I did it. So what?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/17/112142/46
“This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States,” Bush said. . . Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used “consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution.” He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have “a clear link” to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.”

[Matt Yglesias] But determined by whom? And if the link to al-Qaida is so "clear" why can't they get a warrant from the FISA court? And in what sense is it in his power, under our laws, to override laws by executive order? If there's time for the president to personally review these requests before authorizing them, why isn't there time for the FISA court to do so? And what kind of law enforcement operation is undertaken on the personal say-so of the president anyway?. . . And how much time does our famously reading-averse chief executive really spend contemplating the justifications for these requests?

At any rate, this sort of thing makes me pessimistic about last week's victory on the McCain Amendment. It seems pretty clear that the White House has no intention of abiding by a straightforward reading of the laws when doing so would impede their efforts to do . . . whatever it is they think they're doing.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/17/113212/10
[SusanG] This appears to me to be a true "line in the sand" moment for America, with a president openly and defiantly declaring himself ready to continue a program that legal scholars, members of Congress and - according to the Friday New York Times article that started this all - several NSA analysts themselves believe to be unconstitutional.

There appears to be no acknowledgement whatsoever of concerns voiced by critics of the program. There is the feeling in the air about all this - and perhaps it's just me - that we are being forced to a constitutional crisis by a president who no longer believes he needs to wear a mask to court public opinion. This reeks of raw will and power.

Lest we forget:

George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000

More: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_atrios_archive.html#113483266855726423

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_11.php#007278

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013439.html

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/bush-spying-on-americans-wire-tapping.html

Let’s be VERY clear: the issue is not whether domestic surveillance is necessary, whether there are bad people we need to check up on, whether there are exceptions to absolute privacy rights, or even whether these clandestine actions have been effective or not. This is all standard Rovean muddling of the issues. There is one and only one issue here: the Bush regime is circumventing the requirement that they need court warrants to do so – warrants from a court that has only said “no” to govt requests once in twenty years, and even in that one instance was reversed on higher appeal. Or, they could have asked Congress to approve Patriot-Act style changes to the law. They didn’t do either, and they didn’t because the simple fact is that the Bush gang doesn’t believe they are subject to laws in this area, and they are determined to make an issue of it

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/politics/18bush.html
Mr. Bush did not address the main question directed at him by some members of Congress on Friday: why he felt it necessary to circumvent the system established under current law, which allows the president to seek emergency warrants, in secret, from the court that oversees intelligence operations. His critics said that under that law, the administration could have obtained the same information.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-never-even-tried-to-get-congress.html
[NYT] President Bush did not ask Congress to include provisions for the N.S.A. domestic surveillance program as part of the Patriot Act and has not sought any other laws to authorize the operation. . . Seeking Congressional approval was also viewed as politically risky because the proposal would be certain to face intense opposition on civil liberties grounds.

[John Aravosis] Ah, so they thought Congress, our elected representatives, wouldn't make it legal for Bush to do what he did, so he didn't go to Congress, he just broke the law anyway. That shows that the White House had concerns that what they were doing was illegal.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6115.html
[Steve Benen] Bush seemed almost annoyed at having to discuss the issue at all. . . Regardless, when it comes to the issue of warrantless spying on Americans, Bush was effectively laying it all on the line this morning. Not only did he acknowledge that this occurred, but he was admitting that he had personally signed off on these searches on multiple occasions.

Where did Bush find the authority? Bush said that he authorized the program "using constitutional authority vested in me as commander-in-chief." Experts and lawmakers from both parties disagree, but the president seems to be in the I'm-the-president-and-I-say-so zone where his conduct is legal by virtue of the fact that it's his conduct.

It sets up a compelling showdown. A lot of officials at every level believe Bush has gone too far this time, while Bush believes he will continue to go as far as he pleases.

More: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003288.html

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_11.php#007277

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_11.php#007275

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/17/212418/07

And explain THIS

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/17/protect-the-people/
[Judd] For 24 hours, Bush and other top administration officials refused to confirm the existence of their secret domestic spying program, arguing that doing so would endanger the American people:

President Bush, 12/16/05
I know that people are anxious to know the details of operations, they– people want me to comment about the veracity of the story. It’s the policy of this government, just not going do it, and the reason why is that because it would compromise our ability to protect the people.

Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 12/16/05:
This relates to intelligence activities and ongoing intelligence operations that are aimed at saving lives. And there’s a reason why we don’t get into discussing ongoing intelligence activities, because it could compromise our efforts to prevent attacks from happening.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 12/16/05:
Well, I’m, again, not going to comment on intelligence activities because intelligence activities, by their very nature, are activities that are sensitive and that should not be compromised.

This morning, President Bush not only confirmed the existence of the program but provided details about how it worked.

This demonstrates that the administration’s initial refusal to comment was not motivated by security concerns. If that was the case Bush still wouldn’t have been able to comment this morning. Rather, the refusal to comment was a public relations strategy. When they decided it wasn’t working, they scrapped it and tried something else.

More: http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/lying_in_politics_/2005/12/down_the_memory_hole.php

The law

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_atrios_archive.html#113484838458821638
* FISA makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance except as provided for by statute. The only defense is for law government agents engaged in official duties conducting “surveillance authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order.” [50 U.S.C. § 1809]

* Congress has specifically stated, in statute, that the criminal wiretap statute and FISA “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” [18 U.S.C. § 2518(f)]

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_atrios_archive.html#113485954484443772
There was absolutely no reason to not follow FISA unless they didn't want anyone to know who they were snooping on.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_11.php#007276
[Josh Marshall] It turns out that FISA specifically empowers the Attorney General or his designee to start wiretapping on an emergency basis even without a warrant so long as a retroactive application is made for one "as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance."

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_digbysblog_archive.html#113485118425457505
[Digby] "Timeliness" was stated over and over again yesterday by administration apologists as the reason that they could not take the time to apply to the FISA cout for permission. That is obviously crap. They simply do not want to have to apply for permission from FISA.

As far as I'm concerned there is only one reason for that. They do not want FISA (who has only been known to deny permission one time since its inception) to find out who they are surveilling.

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013440.html

A little clue: Josh Marshall uncovers the information that while the FISA court almost never rejects a request, they do sometimes request modifications to fit the law (and have had to do this more under the Bush regime). Perhaps this is what they don’t want to have to do

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_11.php#007280

The assault on the media

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/first-fire-karl-then-get-back-to-us.html
"As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have," [Bush] said. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007793.php
[Shakespeare’s Sister] So it was the media that broke the law by revealing this classified program, not his administration by authorizing it.

[NB: This is the ultimate excuse of totalitarian regimes: that the very disclosure of what they are (illegally) doing is a national security issue. This is despicable on its face and, as John Aravosis points out, above, difficult to stomach from an administration that is actively shielding its own members who have disclosed classified information]

“Clear links”

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_atrios_archive.html#113484927267230945
Bush said in his address that it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al- Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

[Atrios] Wow, there are thousands of people in the US who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al Qaeda. If true that's pretty damn scary. Of course, it's just bullshit, but the administration has been lying to us about this stuff for years.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_atrios_archive.html#113483782903130213
[Andrea Mitchell] Well, a former intelligence official tells NBC News tonight that the people most likely to be swept up in this are listed in a Homeland Security database. . . called Muslims of America. But most people targeted are never charged with a crime. And one former official says this does amount to a giant electronic fishing expedition. Is it legal? The president says yes. Critics say no.

Who will stand up to them? Who will say, “no more”?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_atrios_archive.html#113484838458821638
[Russ Feingold, D-WI] The President's shocking admission that he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens, without going to a court and in violation of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress, further demonstrates the urgent need for these protections. The President believes that he has the power to override the laws that Congress has passed. This is not how our democratic system of government works. The President does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow. He is a president, not a king.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_atrios_archive.html#113486383788554537
[Former GOP congressman, Bob Barr] What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order. . . Well, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is the Constitution, and I took an oath to abide by it. . . and the president did. And I don't really care very much whether or not it can be justified based on some hypothetical. The fact of the matter is that, if you have any government official who deliberately orders that federal law be violated despite the best of motives, that certainly ought to be of concern to us. . . . Here again, this is absolutely a bizarre conversation where you have a member of Congress saying that it's okay for the president of the United States to ignore U.S. law, to ignore the Constitution, simply because we are in an undeclared war.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007796.php
[Shakespeare’s Sister] Barr is no left-winger, he’s a fire-breathing conservative who tried the case against Clinton, strongly supports the Second Amendment, drafted the Defense of Marriage Act, staunchly apposes abortion, and has been a speaker before the Council of Conservative Citizens. . . The problem isn’t the spying; it’s the secrecy. Surely that’s something conservatives can wrap their heads around, as Bob Barr seems to have done.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess18dec18,1,4625756.story
Bush was clearly on the defensive Saturday. And despite arguing that Americans "expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties," he faced the prospect of an increasingly restive Republican Congress.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pledged to hold hearings on the NSA order. Some Republicans strongly questioned how citizens' privacy rights would be protected if government agencies could conduct electronic surveillance of citizens without a court review.

Conservatives such as Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) argued that the Patriot Act, which gives investigators an assortment of additional tools, violates the very tenets of personal freedom that have defined American values from the founding of the country. Sununu and others complained that about 30,000 "national security letters" had been issued under the law and recipients were prohibited from discussing the letters.

Although polls suggest the public remains supportive of government vigilance against terrorism, many Republicans are wary that — at the outset of the 2006 midterm election season — Democrats could paint certain methods as violations of traditional American values.

"We need to be mindful of Ben Franklin's words over 200 years ago: Those who would give up essential liberty in the pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security," Sununu said Friday. And he noted that the administration had not responded to requests to work out their differences. . .

Will the media give this story the sensational coverage it deserves, or will another pillar of freedom be quietly pulled down without hue and cry? Will the media let itself be bullied (again) by the claim that they have to be on the side of the Security State in order not to “help the terrorists”?

Let’s review the argument: We don’t want courts to review the names of U.S. citizens we are investigating, because it is a national security secret. We don’t want to go to Congress for permission, because it is a national security secret. We aren’t going to follow certain laws, but we don’t want to tell you which ones, or why, because it is a national security secret. We don’t even want to acknowledge that we are doing it, because it is a national security secret. And we sure as hell don’t want the New York Times writing about it, because it is a national security secret. You don’t need to know these things, just trust us. . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_atrios_archive.html#113487461929912240

Don’t miss: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_digbysblog_archive.html#113487917810102685

The death of Congressional oversight

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_digbysblog_archive.html#113488271155894045

http://www.slate.com/id/2132679
The WP says Congress has been "caught by surprise" by several of the president's tactics in the war on terror and is now "reconsidering its relatively lenient oversight" of the administration.

Here is an example of what is getting caught in the net: a student ordering a library copy of Mao’s “Little Red Book” for a university assignment

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_digbysblog_archive.html#113484064594836105

[NB: Hey, I OWN a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book – come and get me, suckers!]

Bush lies

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/17/85828/075
[Georgia10] President Bush claims that he never made the Saddam-9/11 link before invading Iraq:

Bush acknowledged on Friday there was no evidence of such a link. . . "There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11," Bush said. "I've never said that and never made that case prior to going into Iraq."

[NB: Well perhaps he never did (personally) but read on]

While Bush may have been more subtle in tying Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, his minion were not. From Former CIA Director James Woosley:

"[I]t's not impossible that terrorist groups could work together with the government...the Iraqi government has been quite closely involved with a number of Sunni terrorist groups and -- on some matters -- has had direct contact with (Osama) bin Laden," [Woolsey] told one anchorman in a series of at least half a dozen national television appearances on Sep. 11 and 12.

That same evening, Kristol echoed Woolsey on National Public Radio. "I think Iraq is, actually, the big, unspoken sort of elephant in the room today. There's a fair amount of evidence that Iraq has had very close associations with Osama bin Laden in the past. . .

Saturday, September 15, President Bush gathered his closest advisers at Camp David to discuss the shape of the coming war. Much of their discussion dealt with Afghanistan. But during a session that morning, according to Bob Woodward's 2002 book, Bush at War, Wolfowitz advocated an attack on Iraq, perhaps even before an attack on Afghanistan. There was a 10 to 50 percent chance that Iraq had been involved in 9/11, he argued. . .

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982713/posts
Recalling that he had told Russert two years ago that he knew of no Iraqi link to the attack, Cheney said Sunday, "Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things."

The Vice President contended that more recent evidence indicates "that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example.". . . Cheney noted that "al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved."

Cheney also cited reports of a meeting between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi in intelligence agent in Prague just months before the attacks, saying that U.S. intelligence has not yet been able confirm or discredit the information.

http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id169.html
Cheney described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Neither the CIA nor the congressional joint inquiry that investigated the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon found any evidence linking Iraq to the hijackers or the attacks.

In ordinary times, wouldn’t this be a bigger story?

http://www.slate.com/id/2132679
The WP stuffs, and the NYT misses, Colin Powell telling the BBC that European governments were aware of the U.S. rendition policy before the media broke the story. He also said Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld cut him out of key decisions and went behind his back directly to the president in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

The Pentagon lied about the lies that their lying toadies were planting in Iraqi newspapers as “news”

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-infowar18dec18,1,32500.story

The horse-trading aftermath of the Iraqi elections, and an interesting observation on the women’s vote there

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/parties-jockey-for-power-in-wake-of.html

Bipartisan group of congressmen wants to mandate a phased troop withdrawal in 2006

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/17/113356/71
A group of bipartisan Representatives announced this morning their plans to introduce a Resolution making phased redeployment in 2006 the official policy of the United States. (It's unclear whether the resolution says the "end of 2006" or just 2006--I'll link to the text when it's up) The GOP has tried to paint Democrats as cut-n'-run cowards by proposing not one, but two resolutions. The first was a fraudulent representation of Murtha's resolution, and the second, passed yesterday, rejecting a timetable for withdrawal (the resolution passed 279-109).

Yet this morning, a group of bipartisan Representatives offered a real resolution rather than a political ploy. The group (which includes Democrats Kucinich and Meehan, and Republicans Jones and Paul)presented their bill at a press conference. At that press conference, they had blown up a quote by then-Governor Bush:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is. . . .I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

Bye-bye Billy

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_co/frist_charity
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's AIDS charity paid nearly a half-million dollars in consulting fees to members of his political inner circle. . .

The returns for World of Hope Inc., obtained by The Associated Press, also show the charity raised the lion's share of its $4.4 million from just 18 sources. They gave between $97,950 and $267,735 each to help fund Frist's efforts to fight AIDS. . . Frist's lawyer, Alex Vogel, said Friday that he would not give their names because tax law does not require their public disclosure. . .

World of Hope gave $3 million it raised to charitable AIDS causes, such as Africare and evangelical Christian groups with ties to Republicans — Franklin Graham's Samaritan Purse and the Rev. Luis Cortes' Esperanza USA, for example.

The rest of the money went to overhead. That included $456,125 in consulting fees to two firms run by Frist's longtime political fundraiser, Linus Catignani. One is jointly run by Linda Bond, the wife of Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo.

The charity also hired the law firm of Vogel's wife, Jill Holtzman Vogel, and Frist's Tennessee accountant, Deborah Kolarich.

Kolarich's name recently surfaced in an e-mail involving Frist's controversial sale of stock in his family founded health care company. That transaction is now under federal investigation.

Jill Holtzman Vogel, who is raising money for a run for the state Senate in Virginia in 2007, has received thousands in contributions this year from Catignani & Bond and from her husband, among numerous other sources, according to data released by the Virginia Public Access Project. . .

Just another coincidence. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/17/16167/024
[Jane Hamsher] "George W. Bush has picked new nominees for the FEC. . . Robert D. Lenhard, who was quite helpful to the 1600 Crew as part of the legal team that challenged the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. But there is perhaps another reason why Mr. Lenhard is being rewarded by BushCo. at just this moment. He's the husband of Viveca Novak, whose testimony now provides the foundation for Karl Rove's defense in the CIA leak case. . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-appoints-viveca-novaks-husband-to.html
[John Aravosis] What? I'm sorry, but this has the appearance of being an attempt to curry favor with the witness in a federal criminal investigation of Bush's own administration. That's obstruction of justice. Whether or not that was Bush's intent, it's incredibly inappropriate to appoint Novak's husband to a senior position. . .

More “journalists” bought and paid for: this time, by Jack Abramoff

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17abramoff.html

More: http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=4481

The conflicted politics of immigration inside the GOP

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/17/151411/00

Tricks of the trade: how Scotty deals with subjects he doesn’t want to talk about

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6116.html

Bonus item: Sunday talk show lineups

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/18/0111/4289

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:52 AM

 
L’ETAT C’EST MOI

One of the aspects of the torture issue, which never got adequately debated at the time (because the country was preoccupied with the gruesomeness of the photos and the actions of renegade military personnel) was the network of secret rulings and Executive Orders, given legitimacy by the legal opinions of John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Alberto Gonzales, which said basically that whatever the Commander in Chief rules is necessary to protect the national security is BY DEFINITION legal. This was never tested in courts and never debated as a matter of public policy. Perhaps people would have granted Bush such unprecedented powers in the days immediately following 9-11; but they were never given the opportunity to do so.

This principle of unbounded Executive authority is the prime legacy of the Bush/Cheney regime and it shows the dishonesty of statements, like Bush’s, that in matters of torture the U.S always follows the law: if anything the President deems necessary is by definition legal, the question is moot.

Now it appears that we may finally have this debate, and at a time when people are much less willing to grant Bush the benefit of the doubt. This NSA story really has the potential to blow what remaining legitimacy Bush has all to hell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-program.html
Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the legality of the program. But nothing came of his inquiry. "People just looked the other way because they didn't want to know what was going on," he said.

A senior government official recalled that he was taken aback when he first learned of the operation. "My first reaction was, ‘We're doing what?'" he said. . .

Several senior government officials say that when the special operation first began, there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A. The agency can choose its eavesdropping targets and does not have to seek approval from Justice Department or other Bush administration officials. Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation, a former senior Bush administration official said. Before the 2004 election, the official said, some N.S.A. personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president.

Comment: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/16/124719/04

Firestorm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html
Congressional sources familiar with limited aspects of the program would not discuss any classified details but made it clear there were serious questions about the legality of the NSA actions. The sources, who demanded anonymity, said there were conditions under which it would be possible to gather and retain information on Americans if the surveillance were part of an investigation into foreign intelligence. . . But those cases are supposed to be minimized. The sources said the actual work of the NSA is so closely held that it is difficult to determine whether it is acting within the law. . .

Most of the powers covered under that law are overseen by a secret court that meets at Justice Department headquarters and must approve applications for wiretaps, searches and other operations. The NSA's operation is outside that court's purview, and according to the Times report, the Justice Department may have sought to limit how much that court was made aware of NSA activities. . .

It has also involved teams of Defense Intelligence Agency personnel stationed in major U.S. cities conducting the type of surveillance typically performed by the FBI: monitoring the movements and activities -- through high-tech equipment -- of individuals and vehicles, the official said.

The involvement of military personnel in such tasks was provoked by grave anxiety among senior intelligence officials after the 2001 suicide attacks that additional terrorist cells were present within U.S. borders and could only be discovered with the military's help, said the official, who had direct knowledge of the events.

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity. . . "This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration," said Martin, who has been sharply critical of the administration's surveillance and detention policies. "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans."

http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/004073.html
"I am deeply troubled that the President of the United States may have secretly ordered his intelligence agents to spy on Americans without obtaining court orders," said [George] Miller, Chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. "Congress had already broadened the powers of the Administration to fight terrorism through the gathering of intelligence, but now it is alleged that the President went even further and secretly ordered the NSA to conduct domestic spying in a manner that may be both unconstitutional and illegal.

"Because the United States Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, would have been intimately involved with drafting this covert policy in his former role as White House Counsel, I do not believe he can be truly impartial in investigating this matter. The Attorney General should recuse himself from the case and immediately appoint a special counsel to fully determine the truth," Miller said. "Congress and the American people need to know whether laws were broken, and if so who was responsible for it.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/
“There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,” said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said there would be hearings early next year and that they would have “a very, very high priority.”. . . He wasn’t alone in reacting harshly to the report. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the story, first reported in Friday’s New York Times, was troubling.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_atrios_archive.html#113477723604345734
[Jack Cafferty -- don’t miss it]

The case for impeachment

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007789.php
[Hilzoy] This is against the law. I have put references to the relevant statute below the fold; the brief version is: the law forbids warrantless surveillance of US citizens, and it provides procedures to be followed in emergencies that do not leave enough time for federal agents to get a warrant. If the NY Times report is correct, the government did not follow these procedures. It therefore acted illegally.

Bush's order is arguably unconstitutional as well: it seems to violate the fourth amendment, and it certainly violates the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

I am normally extremely wary of talking about impeachment. I think that impeachment is a trauma for the country, and that it should only be considered in extreme cases. Moreover, I think that the fact that Clinton was impeached raises the bar as far as impeaching Bush: two traumas in a row is really not good for the country, and even though my reluctance to go through a second impeachment benefits the very Republicans who needlessly inflicted the first on us, I don't care. It's bad for the country, and that matters most.

But I have a high bar, not a nonexistent one. And for a President to order violations of the law meets my criteria for impeachment. This is exactly what got Nixon in trouble: he ordered his subordinates to obstruct justice. To the extent that the two cases differ, the differences make what Bush did worse: after all, it's not as though warrants are hard to get, or the law makes no provision for emergencies. Bush could have followed the law had he wanted to. He chose to set it aside.

And this is something that no American should tolerate. We claim to have a government of laws, not of men. That claim means nothing if we are not prepared to act when a President (or anyone else) places himself above the law. If the New York Times report is true, then Bush should be impeached. . .

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4806
[Holden] The big news today is that George Bush signed a secret executive order back in 2002 authorizing warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens in apparent violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

One wonders, in light of this president’s arrogance, lust for unbridled power, and passion for secrecy, how many other clandestine edicts he has issued over the past five years. The ACLU uncovered evidence that he signed a secret executive order authorizing torture last year. What other orders has he issued of which we have yet to learn?

The Yoo connection: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_11.php#007273

Be afraid, be very afraid. . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_digbysblog_archive.html#113477714899464334
[Digby] Look, the problem here, again, is not one of just spying on Americans, as repulsively totalitarian as that is. It's that the administration adopted John Yoo's theory of presidential infallibility. But, of course, it wasn't really John Yoo's theory at all; it was Dick Cheney's muse, Richard Nixon who said, "when the President does it, that means it's not illegal."

This was not some off the cuff statement. It was based upon a serious constitutional theory --- that the congress or the judiciary (and by inference the laws they promulgate and interpret) have no authority over an equal branch of government. The president, in the pursuit of his duties as president, is not subject to the laws. Citizens can offer their judgment of his performance every four years at the ballot box.

After the election, George W. Bush said this:

The Post: ...Why hasn't anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election.

He, like Nixon, believes that the president has only one "accountability moment" while he is president. His re-election. Beyond that, he has been given a blank check. And that includes breaking the law since if the president does it, it's not illegal, the president being the executive branch which is not subject to any other branch of government.

John Yoo, the former deputy attorney general who wrote many of the opinion undergirding these findings (on torture as well as spying) explains that the congress has no right to abridge the president's warmaking powers. Its only constitutional remedy to a war with which they disagree is to deny funding; they can leave the troops on the field with no food or bullets.

I suspect that there are many more of these instances out there in which the administration has simply ignored the law. They believe that the constitution explicitly authorizes them to do so. . .

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003286.html
Eric Umansky. . .writes and asks me to post, that he's just spoken to NSA expert James "Bamford, who says that in the FISA court's 20 year history it has only rejected one warrant request. That was then kicked up to a FISA appeals court (the only time that court has ever convened) and that court in turn approved the request... In other words, what was the point in avoiding the courts? Just like many of the administration's more shady decisions, the risk-reward here was all screwy..."

[NB: It’s not screwy, THEY DON’T BELIEVE THEY HAVE TO, and they are all about establishing the precedent of unlimited Executive authority in the conduct of war. This is another legacy of the peculiar sort of “war” the War on Terror is – vague as to targets, unlimited in duration, and playing off the most atavistic human responses of fear and paranoia. You have to let us do this, or else we can’t keep you safe: there are evil-doers out there who want to do you harm. Trust Daddy]

Now we understand the utter emptiness of reassurances like this

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=astkV2gMsvUY
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today defended President George W. Bush against reports he authorized spying on American citizens and foreign nationals in the U.S. following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. . . Rice, interviewed on NBC's “Today'' show, said “the president has been very clear that he would not order people to do things that are illegal.'' She declined to comment directly on the New York Times report.

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4811
MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. One, I'm aware of the reports that were in the papers this morning.

Q I hope so.

MR. McCLELLAN: This relates to intelligence activities and ongoing intelligence operations that are aimed at saving lives.

[snip]

Q Right, but all I asked you was whether it's your position that it always requires a court order for surveillance of U.S. citizens.

MR. McCLELLAN: What it's getting into -- again, let me reiterate. The President is firmly committed to upholding our Constitution and protecting people's civil liberties.

[snip]

Now in terms of talking about the National Security Agency or matters like that, that would be getting into talking about ongoing intelligence activities. And they're classified for a reason, because they go to the issue of sources and methods and protecting the American people. And because they're classified, I'm not able to get into discussing those issues from this podium.

[snip]

Q You mean you cannot say whether it's lawful to spy on Americans or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: We have a Constitution and we have laws.

Q We're not asking for any details. We're asking you --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I'm making a broad statement to let you know that we --

Q It is broad. Is it legal to spy on Americans?

MR. McCLELLAN: We have a Constitution and we have laws in place, and we follow those --

Q You say you are abiding by the law?

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely. And there's congressional oversight of intelligence activities, there's other oversight of intelligence activities.

Q Why do you have to have secret orders then?

MR. McCLELLAN: Does anybody have a question? Go ahead.

Q And how many secret orders have been issued by this President?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the American people appreciate what we do to work within the law to prevent attacks from happening. The Patriot Act is being debated right now.

Q It's never been within the law to spy on Americans.

Trust Daddy

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003283.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/
Bush said in an interview that “we do not discuss ongoing intelligence operations to protect the country. And the reason why is that there’s an enemy that lurks, that would like to know exactly what we’re trying to do to stop them. . . “I will make this point,” he continued. “That whatever I do to protect the American people — and I have an obligation to do so — that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17legal.html
A single, fiercely debated legal principle lies behind nearly every major initiative in the Bush administration's war on terror, scholars say: the sweeping assertion of the powers of the presidency. . .

Not just once. . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_nsa
President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/if-bush-thought-eavesdropping-laws.html
[John Aravosis] If Bush thought eavesdropping laws were too onerous post 9/11, he was required to ask Congress to CHANGE THE LAW, not just violate it for 3 years

Who?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/16/235436/02
[MSNBC] . . . congressional leaders have also been briefed more than a dozen times. . .

[Susan G] Sooo ... who are these "congressional leaders" who have been briefed about all this and have kept quiet?

Why did the New York Times, which had this story BEFORE the 2004 elections, sit on it for a year?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/16/194744/78

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-didnt-ny-times-publish-domestic.html

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_atrios_archive.html#113476744494736457

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003287.html

“Things we knew a year ago”

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4812

Remember the Bolton hearings?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/16/142620/20
[Legal Times] "During the confirmation hearings of John Bolton as the U.S. representative to the United Nations, it came to light that the NSA had freely revealed intercepted conversations of U.S. citizens to Bolton while he served at the State Department. . . . More generally, Newsweek reports that from January 2004 to May 2005, the NSA supplied intercepts and names of 10,000 U.S. citizens to policy-makers at many departments, other U.S. intelligence services, and law enforcement agencies."

[Larry Johnson] We still don't know who he was looking at and what information was contained in those intercepts. More importantly, were they legally obtained? In light of the latest revelation, we have another possible explanation why the Bush Administration fought so strenuously to keep those intercepts secret and out of the hearing. Snooping without judicial review is wrong and must be punished.

You think the Senate is going to pass the Patriot Act NOW? Think again. . .

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2C62145C
[AP] In a stinging defeat for President Bush. . .

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001150.html
[Steven Clemons] There is momentum now behind those who want to clip the wings of the Bush White House. A genuine battle is breaking out. . .finally.

In the past, those who would preserve our system of checks and balances, our system of justice, and civil society have been too weak compared to a White House that had become intoxicated with a passionate belief in its own infallibility.

The White House is being handed one defeat after another, but the President and his team despise being beaten. I suspect that we are entering a dangerous period where the White House feels trapped and prone to excess to try and get back in control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17patriot.html
The bill's opponents had pushed for a three-month extension of the law to allow for more negotiations, but the White House and Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, rebuffed their request. . . "The terrorists want to attack America again and kill the innocent and inflict even greater damage than they did on Sept. 11 - and the Congress has a responsibility not to take away this vital tool that law enforcement and intelligence officials have used to protect the American people," Mr. Bush said in a statement after the vote against ending debate. "The senators who are filibustering the Patriot Act must stop their delaying tactics so that we are not without this critical law for even a single moment."

BRILLIANT logic: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-16-patriot-act-senate_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
"We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act," Frist warned.

What next? http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/terrorism_and_its_control_/2005/12/future_strategy_on_the_patriot_act.php

A new ploy to get the Arctic Refuge drilling bill passed: lard it up with lots of other “national security” provisions

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/16/134929/54
[LAT] A group was drafting a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) saying that senators "ought not to exploit . . . the well-being of our troops" to advance the drilling measure. . .

Defining “victory” downward

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_atrios_archive.html#113479448050619252
[Dana Milbank] This is why the "victory" strategy is brilliant: As my sage colleague Al Kamen points out, Bush is taking the Potter Stewart approach. I don't know the definition of victory, but I know it when I see it. While the president has put himself in position of being the sole arbiter of victory, he has managed to make all his opponents appear to be advocating the opposite, which is defeat.

Iraq: early voting indicators (at least until the vote-counting shenanigans begin)

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/religious-shiite-coalition-sweeping.html

He’s making a list, checking it twice. . .

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_firedoglake_archive.html#113474808026547263
MSNBC reports that Patrick Fitzgerald is back before the Grand Jury this morning. . .

[NB: I don’t like to make predictions, but what the hell: indictments coming down next week. . . ]

Why was Rove talking with Novak in the first place? According to this account (leaked by his lawyer, no doubt), the conversation was mainly about something else. But that doesn’t get Rove off the hook for leaking the information (whether it was his primary intention or not), and it certainly doesn’t get him off the hook for perjury – but it sure does throw Libby and Cheney’s other henchmen under the wheels of the train to protect himself. Thanks Karl!

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003279.html
[Laura Rozen] Murray Waas reports, that he was on orders to defend Fran Townsend, the new NSC homeland security czar, who was the subject of internal administration whispering campaign for having worked in the Clinton-era justice department. And who was telling Novak that Townsend was an "enemy within"? David Addington and Scooter Libby, in Cheney's office, were leading that jihad, Waas reports. Go read the piece. The story seems to be sourced by someone trying to help Rove out, e.g. his lawyer, but it does explain the information that gave Fitzgerald pause and resulted in the delay in any Rove indictment before the first grand jury expired.

The full story: http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1216nj2.htm

Copious analysis: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013430.html

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001147.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_digbysblog_archive.html#113476610427997602
Novak to Rove: “I think you are very much going to like something that I am about to write."

Raw Story’s article on the Rove-Hadley email

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013433.html
[Jeralyn Merritt] Did Karl Rove hide or purposely conceal the Stephen Hadley e-mail after Attorney General Gonzales ordered the production of e-mails and after the February 6 deadline for the White House to turn over subpoenaed contacts with reporters?. . .

The full story: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Rove_Hadley_email_at_crux_of_1216.html

Just shut up!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601817.html
President Bush said yesterday his statement that former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was innocent of criminal charges in Texas was meant to signal confidence in the justice system and not to make a pronouncement about the individual case. . . "The point I was making was 'innocent until otherwise proven,' " Bush said in an interview aired last night on PBS's "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." "It's a belief in the system. . .”

[NB: In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, what a MAROON! How stupid does he think we are?]

Another plea deal, another witness against DeLay

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003280.html

Bob Novak, humiliated and discredited as a serious journalist, released from CNN. Now, where would someone with his record find serious work. . . . hmmmmm?

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001149.html

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/flash_bob_novak_becoming_fox_news_channel_contributor_29605.asp

A well-deserved spot in history

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2D92145C
[Reuters] President George W. Bush ranks as the least popular and most bellicose of the last ten U.S. presidents, according to a new survey.

Only nine percent of the 662 people polled picked Bush as their favorite among the last 10 presidents. John F. Kennedy topped that part of the survey, with 26 percent, closely followed by Bill Clinton (25 percent) and Ronald Reagan (23 percent).

Bush was also viewed as the most warlike president (43 percent), the worst for the economy (42 percent) and the least effective (33 percent).

Bonus item: Enjoy!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/16/71548/343
Dan Kurtzman compiles a list of the 25 "Mind Numbingly Stupid Quotes" of 2005. 21 are by conservatives, but only because they're mind-numbingly stupid. (And these guys are beating us...???) A sample...

21) "I am not going to give you a number for it because it's not my business to do intelligent work."
---Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked to estimate the number of Iraqi insurgents while testifying before Congress, Feb. 16, 2005

20) "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
---Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

15) "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office. She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."
---Sen. Bill Frist, diagnosing Terri Schiavo's condition during a speech on the Senate floor, March 17, 2005. [The autopsy revealed she was blind.]

6) "You work three jobs? ... Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that."
---President Bush, to a divorced mother of three in Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005

5) "Considering the dire circumstances that we have in New Orleans, virtually a city that has been destroyed, things are going relatively well."
---FEMA Director Michael Brown, Sept. 1, 2005

4) "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."
---Bush, Sept. 2, 2005

The full list: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stupidquotes/a/dumbquotes2005.htm

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***

- posted by Nick Burbules @ 8:12 AM

 
“IT IS PLAUSIBLE”

Worse and worse. A couple of days ago we learned that the Pentagon is spying on peaceful domestic groups, an unprecedented extension of their powers and a clear attempt to intimidate and undermine political opposition.

See, here’s the argument: We’re the Defense Dept. We are protecting you by fighting the terrorists. So if you have any questions about how we are going about doing it, or if you actively oppose us, you are helping the terrorists. That makes you a dangerous enemy of the nation. Therefore, we can investigate you. Any questions?

So today we learn that Bush secretly authorized hundreds, perhaps thousands, of domestic wiretaps by the NSA (which is tasked with FOREIGN intelligence gathering) – all without the dreadful nuisance of legal warrants

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-program.html
Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years. . .

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval represents a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches. . . "This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

http://www.slate.com/id/2132602/
[Eric Umansky] One of the curious things about the program is that there is already a special court that issues national-security-related subpoenas and has a much lower threshold for evidence than regular courts. That court has rarely—if ever—turned down a subpoena request. . .

[NB: What this tells you is that it isn’t about getting the warrants they need – it’s about not leaving any legal paper trail at all]

Finally, the Times' snoop scoop has this:

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

What changed after a year?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003276.html
[Laura Rozen] It's a story that has a lot of strange submerged kind of meta-stories. Particularly regarding the fact that this story had such influence on the policy itself because it was so outside the law, that only public exposure could change it. Like the torture policy, the black site prisons, etc. They are influenced not by respect for the law, which has long been chucked out the window, but by public exposure.

Arianna Huffington: read her

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/60s-flashback-is-the-go_b_12280.html

Well, isn’t that special? Just in time for the holidays, everyone gets what they wanted. McCain gets to look like a strong principled guy. Cheney gets his CIA loophole. And Bush gets to lie for the umpteenth time, “we don’t ever torture – nope, huh-uh, never do it”

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-detain.html

[NB: The exception for people “acting under orders” (or thinking that they are) reveals the emptiness of the exercise. If they had a clear unambiguous policy that they just don’t do these things – which they claim – there wouldn’t be any ambiguity about someone thinking they were ordered to torture, would there?]

Kabuki: http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/15/145654/40

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001143.html

http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/12/another_wrinkle.html

http://redsoxville.blogspot.com/2005/12/coinky-dinky.html

Here’s why it doesn’t matter a damn bit

http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/12/a_potential_spl.html
Senate negotiators are considering a second amendment that would override military regs and let tribunals use evidence gained, ahem, "as a result of coercion."

More: http://www.slate.com/id/2132572/fr/rss/

“Plan for Victory” – soon to become the “Mission Accomplished” of Bush’s second term

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15assess.html
It took a thousand days after he ordered the invasion of Iraq for President Bush to describe in considerable detail his strategy for transforming the country and the region, and to lay out the benchmarks that he said Wednesday would lead to "complete victory."

Yet in four recent speeches and an accompanying strategy document he has made his case, some of his aides concede, just as his ability to control events in Iraq may be about to erode. . .

But it is the longer term - the next year - that worries many of Mr. Bush's advisers and the United States military. Amid insurgent attacks and warnings of civil war, the government may take months to form, and many officials wonder whether that lag will distract the Iraqis from leaping the hurdles that Mr. Bush wants them to clear before he will begin withdrawing American forces next year.

Taken together, Mr. Bush's speeches and document lay out just how high those hurdles are: building a new government strong enough that "terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy". . .

In the speeches, Mr. Bush has been cautiously optimistic. He has acknowledged, however, that almost nothing in Iraq has gone according to plan in these past 33 months.

Participants in some of the briefings he has received in the Situation Room in recent weeks say that acknowledgment is in keeping with the far more somber tone of the briefings. Military commanders have described possible situations that range from the best case - drawing American troops down to about 100,000 before the American elections in November - to keeping them at far higher numbers if the new Parliament turns to chaos, civil war threatens, or political leaders are assassinated.

"We've either built ourselves an exit ramp," one senior official involved in the discussions said this week, "or we've built ourselves a box."

The administration's concern is that chaos will exhaust what is left of the Congressional and public support Mr. Bush has tried to build up with his speeches and his repetition of the word "victory." (He used the word 10 times on Wednesday in a 31-minute speech, but after the first speech, at the United States Naval Academy two weeks ago, the White House decided to put the huge "Plan for Victory" backdrops in storage.) . . .

UN-believable: you couldn’t make it up. Our feckless allies in Iraq HAD ZARQAWI IN CUSTODY, but let him go!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/15/zarqawi.captured/index.html
A U.S. official couldn't confirm the report, but said he wouldn't dismiss it.

"It is plausible," he said.

[NB: Does anyone want to discuss the possibility that people within the Iraqi security agencies purposely let him go?]

More on the shamefully lax and credulous news coverage of Bush’s claim to be “taking responsibility” for war mistakes, when he wasn’t taking responsibility for them at all

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008646

Another lie in the long list of war lies: that Congress “had the same information” the WH did in the lead-up to the war

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_11.php#007266

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001144.html

After months of saying he can’t comment on an ongoing investigation in the Plame case (where he actually does have personal and direct knowledge of who is involved), Bush suddenly starts commenting on ANOTHER ongoing investigation, declaring Tom DeLay’s innocence

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121402119.html

[NB: No one picks this up, but is he laying the groundwork to keep Rove on board even after he is indicted? After all, why fire an innocent man?]

http://crookedtimber.org/2005/12/15/this-looks-like-a-job-for-josh-marshall-but-maybe-he-hasnt-finished-his-coffee-yet/
[John Holbo] Now help me finish this thought by providing links to ALL those occasions when the President has not been so forthcoming. Mr. Google gives pretty good hits in response to “Bush won’t comment on ongoing investigations”.

More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4800

Scotty

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007779.php
Q Scott, the President told Brit Hume that he thought that Tom DeLay is not guilty, even though the prosecution is obviously ongoing. What does the President feel about Scooter Libby? Does he feel that Mr. Libby --

MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. First of all, the President was asked a question and he responded to that question in the interview yesterday, and made very clear what his views were. We don't typically tend to get into discussing legal matters of that nature, but in this instance, the President chose to respond to it. Our policy regarding the Fitzgerald investigation and ongoing legal proceeding is well-known and it remains unchanged. And so I'm just not going to have anything further to say. But we've had a policy in place for a long time regarding the Fitzgerald investigation.

Q Why would that not apply to the same type of prosecution involving Congressman DeLay?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just told you we had a policy in place regarding this investigation, and you've heard me say before that we're not going to talk about it further while it's ongoing.

Q Well, if it's prejudging the Fitzgerald investigation, isn't it prejudging the Texas investigation with regard to Congressman DeLay?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think I've answered your question.

Why this is a serious problem: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_digbysblog_archive.html#113469289323114228

Novak says Bush knows who the leaker(s) are – and of course he does, putting the lie to all his claims to want to get to the bottom of things, to fire anyone he finds responsible, etc. Here’s how Scotty offers a classic non-denial denial

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013415.html
"I don't know what he's basing it on," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan, declining to comment further.

Senate has the votes to filibuster Patriot Act II

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/15/19185/249

Can anyone read Alito’s decisions without detecting the whiff of a truly dangerous mind at work?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/15/8343/5354

A very bad week for Republicans. . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008652

Top Republican convicted, despite strong RNC support, of voter suppression. Nice to know where the party stands on this kind of crime

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/gop-does-cheat-to-win.html

More trouble to come: phony Abramoff charity claims to have transferred over $300,000 in funds to other charities (who say they never received a penny) – so this was a cover for payments to. . . .whom?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_atrios_archive.html#113466168802010721

More: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003273.html

Bush claims ignorance on who Abramoff is – and of course, that is another easily documented lie

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4801

Here’s the GOP battle plan for 2006

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/12/the_cole_burrrr.html

Oh, Canada!

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/12/shame_canada.html
[Josh Marshall] Yesterday in a speech to the Canadian Club in Ottawa, US Ambassador David Wilkins warned Canadians to tone down their criticism of the United States in their current national political campaigns. Canadian elections are scheduled for January 23rd.

"It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and constantly criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner. But it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn't have a long-term impact on our relationship," said Ambassador Wilkins. "It shouldn't be lost on any of us that some of your politicians use my country to score political points."

[Lindsay Beyerstein] Wilkins is right, it is a slippery slope. I know. I'm a Canadian who started criticizing the US during an election campaign. It was fun at first. Then I felt like I needed to do it more and more. Pretty soon I was criticizing the US every day. Eventually I found myself in a small apartment in a major American city doing it for money. . .

Bonus item: You don’t have to scratch very deep to find the anti-semitism underlying much of Christian fundamentalism: “Happy Holidays!”

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/religion_and_politics_/2005/12/the_war_on_chanukah.php

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/reuters-us-jews-feel-threatened-by.html

http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10784

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:44 AM

 
THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

CNN miswrites the headline and lead

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html
Bush takes responsibility for invasion intelligence
President Bush took responsibility Wednesday for "wrong" intelligence that led to the war. . .

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said during his fourth and final speech before Thursday's vote for Iraq's parliament. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that.". . . "My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision," the president said.

[NB: I think you see the point: Bush explicitly DID NOT take responsibility for the distorted intelligence – nor for the fact that they made these decisions KNOWING that the intelligence was distorted. He only takes “responsibility” for the decision that we already know he was responsible for – the decision to go to war. And he believes that decision was the “right decision.” So where the hell is there any news in this speech?]

More nonsense: http://crookedtimber.org/2005/12/14/bushs-paradox/
Bush on the war: “Whether or not it needed to happen, I’m still convinced it needed to happen.”

More: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008629

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003259.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007773.php
[Kevin Drum] George Bush gave a speech Wednesday in which he acknowledged that we got lots of bad intelligence about Iraq's WMD before the war but failed to take any personal responsibility for demanding that very intelligence in the first place and ignoring all dissenting views. Of the major news outlets, only Knight Ridder bothered to point that out:

"It's true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush admitted — omitting that he and top aides had ignored warnings from midlevel intelligence agents that some of the evidence was suspect....

See how easy that is? Why can't they all do this?

After the elections in Iraq, part one

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/international/middleeast/14cnd-vote.html
The elections are being seen by leaders of both countries as the definitive test of the Bush administration's assumption that free elections are the best means for reconciling this country's vastly polarized ethnic and sectarian communities, which are locked in a bloody, Sunni-backed insurgency that increasingly appears to threaten the unity of the country.

The election itself is expected to reveal a fissure of another sort, between a clerical-backed Shiite coalition of religious parties on one side, and a mostly secular array of Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties on the other.

Between the two are profound differences over the direction of the country and the nature of the Iraqi state; not just over how heavily it should be influenced by Islam but also over the powers of the central government and the autonomy granted to local regions. Implicit in those questions, for many Iraqis, is whether the country can survive at all.

More: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/14/22157/790

http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/14/235355/71

After the elections, part two

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_WAR_COSTS
The Pentagon is in the early stages of drafting a wartime request for up to $100 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan, lawmakers say, a figure that would push spending related to the wars toward a staggering half-trillion dollars. . .

Negotiations with McCain to find a “compromise” on torture are at an impasse

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_DETAINEES
"At this point, discussions are ongoing," Hadley told The Associated Press as he left McCain's Capitol Hill office after an hour-long meeting.

"We're still talking," McCain said Wednesday afternoon. "We'll get this resolved one way or another."

But progress appeared stalled just hours later when the House GOP considered a nonbinding effort by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., to put the House on record supporting McCain's provisions.

House Republican leaders had delayed for months appointing negotiators for the defense spending bill in part to avoid a House vote on the McCain provisions.

Republican–controlled House endorses McCain bill

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_DETAINEES

[NB: For the record, the GOP breaks 107-121 in favor of torture]

Meanwhile. . .

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4795
Q [Helen Thomas] I have another question. You keep saying we don't torture, but you're trying to negotiate a compromise where we can, an exemption.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's not correct, and I've told you that before.

Q What is correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has made it very clear that we do not torture and we do not engage in torture.

Q But you want an exemption.

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, what we do want to do is continue working with Senator McCain and others to come up with a good solution. And Steve Hadley had a meeting --

Q A solution to what?

MR. McCLELLAN: Steve Hadley had a good discussion with Senator McCain earlier today; it was a constructive discussion. We are continuing to work with Senator McCain and his staff to find a good solution on how we move forward. And Secretary Rice spoke about this at length just last week --

Q Why do you need a solution if we don't torture?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and talked about the difficult issues that are involved here, because we're talking about the safety and security of the American people, and we're engaged in a different kind of war against a very dangerous enemy.

Q -- need an exemption? Isn't that what you're trying --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's not a correct assessment, Helen, because there are already laws that prevent and prohibit torture.

Q What's it all about then?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've made it very clear. Maybe you should go back and look at what we've said over the last couple weeks.

Q It has not been clear. I want to know why you need an exemption to torture.

MR. McCLELLAN: That is not correct. There are already laws on the books that prohibit torture, both treaties and our own laws. And our own laws prohibit torture.

More tortured logic

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4787
On one side of the world the Pentagon is re-writing their interrogation rules in order to clearly delineate just how much torture is enough torture for freedom-loving America while on the other side of the world the US military will monitor Iraqi prisons to make sure they don't torture their fellow Iraqis.

Can it be true? Condoleezza Rice gives the Senate a classified briefing – but only Republicans are allowed to attend?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003260.html

“The Arsonist” – don’t miss it

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10734

Patriot Act II in trouble?

http://www.slate.com/id/2132489/
[Eric Umansky] As the NYT fronts and others go inside with, the House, as expected, voted to extend the Patriot Act. But as the Times emphasizes, there might not be enough votes now in the Senate to overrule a threatened filibuster. In other words, the act's supporters might need to pull back and add some civil-liberties protections that the filibuster people have been demanding.

Just peachy

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/business/worldbusiness/14cnd-econ.html
The United States trade deficit reached a new high for the second consecutive month, the Commerce Department reported today, widening to a record $68.9 billion in October. . . The unanticipated widening in the trade gap is likely to dampen economic growth in the fourth quarter, and it suggests that the problems caused by the hurricanes in September have taken a larger-than-expected a toll.

Frist on the edge?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007244.php
The Hill is buzzing today over a weird incident yesterday in which Sen. Bill Frist's (R-TN) Chief of Staff Eric Ueland flipped out at a young AP reporter, Jonathan Katz, who had the temerity to ask Frist whether it was true that he had no idea how much stock he owned before he sold it off just ahead of the stock's precipitous decline.

[Roll Call] After the off-camera dugout ended, Ueland “berated” and “bullied” the AP reporter, according to other reporters, for initiating the line of questioning. Ueland accused Katz of not understanding the issue after having been repeatedly briefed on the HCA matter.

One reporter said Ueland was “demeaning and rude” to the young AP journalist. Another veteran reporter said Ueland “went over the line” in “dressing the guy down” — in front of about 25 other reporters, no less. Yet another Senate reporter said, “It was outrageous. [Ueland] was yelling at the kid. And Eric is usually a very calm and cool guy.”

Reporters who attended the dugout said Frist looked rattled over questions about the HCA deal, which remains the subject of dual federal investigations, and speculated that perhaps Ueland snapped because Frist doesn’t have a good defense. They also noted that Frist has largely avoided cameras since the controversy broke and has moved his dugouts — when he holds them — into the Senate chamber, where cameras and tape recorders are prohibited.

“Now everyone’s talking about it. ... Now I’m wondering if he’s gotten another subpoena. It makes me think there’s something going on,” one veteran journalist said.

More: http://www.slingshot.org/2005/12/14/senator-frists-very-bad-week/

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_atrios_archive.html#113457864205835644

Promises, promises

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008627
[The Hill] The House ethics committee may not launch an immediate investigation into the activities of former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) once it becomes fully operational after New Year’s, according to its chairman Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.).

In April, Hastings pledged to launch an immediate probe of DeLay if Democrats agreed to cooperate with him and allow him to organize the Standards of Official Conduct Committee, as it is officially known.

The panel had been put in limbo by a partisan dispute over rules changes.

Hastings said in a recent interview with The Hill that his offer to investigate DeLay earlier this year was “extraordinary.” He said the committee would now operate on regular order. When asked whether his offer was outside regular order, he responded, “Yeah. That was extraordinary. Let’s put it that way.”

Hastings’s original offer was that he and at least three Republican colleagues on the committee would vote at the earliest opportunity to empanel an investigative subcommittee headed by Rep. Melissa Hart (R-Pa.) to “review allegations concerning travel and other actions by Mr. DeLay.”

Now, however, his position is that, “We’re going to start all over.”

Even conservatives expect Rove to be indicted

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512140829.asp

Here’s why

http://www.slate.com/id/2132350/fr/rss/

OK, so I agree with Bob Novak about one thing, at least

http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/377675.html
Newspaper columnist Robert Novak is still not naming his source in the Valerie Plame affair, but he says he is pretty sure the name is no mystery to President Bush.

"I'm confident the president knows who the source is," Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh on Tuesday. "I'd be amazed if he doesn't."

"So I say, 'Don't bug me. Don't bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is.' "

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/14/141557/22
Novak says Bush probably knows the identity of the leaker. Of course Bush knows. So why hasn't someone been fired?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CIA_LEAK_INVESTIGATION
Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer urged Bush to identify Novak's source or to say that he does not know who it is. . . "You are in a position to clear this matter up quickly," Schumer said in a letter to the president on Wednesday.

"Unlike Mr. Novak, who can claim an interest in maintaining the confidentiality of his sources, there is no similar privilege arguably preventing you from sharing this information," Schumer wrote.

"You have repeatedly suggested that you would like to get to the bottom of this affair," Schumer reminded Bush. "At one point, in 2004, you suggested that anyone who was involved in leaking the name of the covert CIA operative would be fired."

Why I read blogs: ReddHedd and Digby catch a little tidbit in the Novak story, almost an aside – was Novak’s source the same as Woodward’s source? It seems tangential, but read on and you’ll see why it really matters

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_digbysblog_archive.html#113459447462249472

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_firedoglake_archive.html#113462877057790693

How stupid is this? Some Democrats resuscitating Bush’s moribund Social Security plan

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/14/16131/763

Froomkinology

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_11.php#007245
[Josh Marshall] The War against Froomkin started with Pat Ruffini, webmaster for Bush-Cheney 2004 and official BC04 blogger? You've got to read this one to believe it.

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_11.php#007243

http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/12/the_froomkin_de.html

How this has gotten John Harris (Froomkin’s accuser) in more trouble than Froomkin

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_firedoglake_archive.html#113460744605150481

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/12/astroturf_vs_gr.html

What this dust-up is really all about

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008619
[Ezra Klein] Deep down, what it's about isn't so much Froomkin's column as the obscene ways the press has taught itself to patrol for that thing that people who don't like skeptical reporting call bias:

Does Dan present a liberal worldview? Not always, but cumulatively I think a great many people would say yes—enough that I don’t want them thinking he works for the news side of the Post.

Watch the dodge. The question isn't whether Froomkin pays secret homage to Karl Marx, but whether an undefined but nevertheless "great many" people think he does. This, of course, is the logical end point for our press corps. Charges of bias require no substantiation whatsoever -- they merely have to be seconded enough times so that they become, ipso facto, truth-esque. And once they're truth-esque, they simply must be addressed, lest the credibility of the whole organization be questioned by a "great many" people, none of whom are acting out of bad faith, none of whom can be dismissed as cranks or ideologues.

. . . If you think it's bias when someone else accuses bias, you're obviously biased. It's all very confusing if you're not very bright, or at least that's the impression I'm getting from Harris, but then again, I'm not very bright.

It is, of course, interesting timing that Harris lets slip the dogs of cowed objectivity at exactly the moment when the White House Briefing, by virtue of Bush's real-life woes, had no choice but to be biased. Over the past few months, reality has simply refused to be objective. It has refused to portray Iraq in a suitably hopeful yet tough-minded manner. It has stubbornly resisted to give Bush approval ratings above the low-40s and high-30s. It has routinely proven obstinate on almost all indicators of the country's mood and well-being, perhaps not realizing that, while things look very bad, some would say they are, in fact, quite good. Reality is biased.

There can be, of course, only one response: reality is going to have to change its name. Can't have folks mixing it up with objective fact. Unless it develops a bit more fair-mindedness, we're simply going to have to call it something different to ensure no one gets confused. Any ideas?

See? This is the kind of wild-eyed partisan mudslinging that got Dan Froomkin in such trouble. Why can’t he just stick to the FACTS?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/12/14/BL2005121401421.html
Reporting that President Bush steered clear of the White House's own Conference on Aging yesterday -- making him the first president ever to do so -- fell to the regional newspapers and NPR, not the big guys.

It turns out that had Bush attended, he would have been facing a very hostile audience. . . So instead, Bush held a photo-op with a hand-picked group of seniors at a swanky retirement home

Bonus item: Proof that Diebold machines can be easily hacked to give false voting results, without detection – something the manufacturers insisted was impossible

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002156.htm

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:54 AM

 
THE WAR AGAINST US

What happens when you give the Defense Dept broad, secret, and mostly unaccountable intelligence capabilities, then break all precedents by giving them DOMESTIC powers, then develop a vague and sweeping conception of “terrorism”? This is what you get. People said it would happen, and now it has happened

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316
A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period. . .

The Defense Department document is the first inside look at how the U.S. military has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11, which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups.

[NB: This isn’t the first time it’s been said, but it bears repeating again. Why is it that they are trumpeting the advancement of democracy around the world, when their true legacy has been the erosion of democracy at home?]

COINTELPRO: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007765.php

Think they’re chastened about their phony news efforts? Think again: they’re being EXPANDED, to the tune of $300 million dollars!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-14-pentagon-pr_x.htm?csp=34
A $300 million Pentagon psychological warfare operation includes plans for placing pro-American messages in foreign media outlets without disclosing the U.S. government as the source. . .

The program will operate throughout the world, including in allied nations and in countries where the United States is not involved in armed conflict. . . The three companies handling the campaign include the Lincoln Group, the company being investigated by the Pentagon for paying Iraqi newspapers to run pro-U.S. stories.

Rove indictment reportedly imminent

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Fitzgerald_seen_to_press_for_Rove_1213.html
A few weeks after he took over the investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson in early 2004, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had already become suspicious that Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney’s then-chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby were hindering his investigation. . .

Fitzgerald was concerned that Rove had hidden or destroyed evidence, lawyers close to the case tell RAW STORY. His suspicions may have been right: an email he sent to then Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley in early July 2003 later proved Rove had spoken to Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about Plame—a fact that Rove omitted when he was first interviewed by the FBI.

Whether or not Fitzgerald knew in late January or early February 2004 about the existence of the email Rove sent to Hadley remains unknown. The email did not show up during a search ordered by then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales in 2003. Gonzales enjoined all White House staff to turn over any communication about Valerie Plame Wilson. . .

Short of a last minute intervention by Rove’s attorney, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is expected to ask a grand jury investigating the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson to indict Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove for making false statements to the FBI and Justice Department investigators in October 2003, lawyers close to the case say. . .

The Chicago prosecutor briefed the second grand jury investigating the outing last week for more than three hours. During that time, he brought them up to speed on the latest developments involving Rove and at least one other White House official, the sources said. The attorneys refused to identify the second person.

As of Monday, neither Rove nor his attorney Robert Luskin has explained Rove’s misstatements to Fitzgerald’s satisfaction, those familiar with the case said. Eleventh-hour testimony from Time Magazine reporter Viveca Novak—who Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin fingered as a crucial witness in keeping his client out of court—does not appear to have been helpful in dodging an indictment, they added. . .

[NB: One of the first things we learned about Fitzgerald was that he didn’t like being lied to. Rove and his mouthpiece lawyer seem to think that these charges are just another PR problem that can be lied and spun out of existence. I suspect that their machinations have just made Fitzgerald all the more determined to nail them. Now, finally, it looks like he will]

Thanks to Digby, a Rovean primer

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_digbysblog_archive.html#113451481255402339
The Rove version of events seems to be that Rove heard about Plame from "someone outside the white house" whose identity he can't remember. Although he lied about it to the FBI, he admitted to the Grand Jury that he confirmed that Plame was CIA to Bob Novak and that Novak told him that he was going to write a story about it. But it was on July 10th or 11th, when he happened to be chattering in the office to Libby about this Novak call when he really learned about Plame. He then spoke to Matt Cooper (on the morning of the 11th) spilled the beans about Plame, shot off an e-mail to Hadley saying that he "didn't take the bait" and then forgot all about that Cooper conversation and the e-mail.

He didn't remember talking to Cooper when, just a week after the conversation, all hell broke loose in Washington when Novak's column came out and it was revealed that Plame was an NOC. He didn't remember when he was asked to search for any documentation about Wilson and he didn't find that e-mail to Hadley either. He didn't remember the conversation with Cooper when the FBI talked to him and he didn't remember it when he testified before the Grand Jury. It wasn't until the following spring when Viveca Novak "pushed back" Bob Luskin, revealing that she knew Rove was Cooper's source and leading Luskin to fortuitously "find" the missing e-mail that Rove apparently remembered the conversation.

Oddly, throughout this time he apparently did remember the Novak confirmation. And it would seem (although we don't know this) that he remembered the Libby conversation from the beginning while forgetting completely about talking to Cooper or writing an e-mail to Hadley on the very same day.

After the miracle e-mail appears, Rove testifies to the GJ in October of 2004 about his conversation with Cooper. He has no reason to worry about what Cooper might say because even though he issued a "waiver", Cooper is refusing to testify and he and TIME are fighting all attempts to get them to cooperate. At this point, it appears that all anyone knows is "gossip" that Cooper and Rove spoke. Rove says the Plame matter was a passing reference in a conversation about welfare reform.

But TIME, surprisingly, gives up the notes the next summer when the Supreme Court refuses to take the appeal and Cooper's lawyer finds a way to get Rove to release Cooper from his promise on the day he is slated to go to jail. Unfortunately for Rove the result is that Cooper testifies, and his notes confirm, that Rove never mentioned welfare reform and spoke at greater length and in much greater detail about Plame than he had testified to earlier. Again, it seems that Rove has not been completely forthcoming with the prosecutor.

Fitzgerald apparently did not buy the convenient Hadley e-mail memory restoration business. (He may have been convinced that other aspects of Rove's story don't add up either.) He was ready to indict. It is supposedly at this point that Luskin comes forward with yet another piece of previously undisclosed information --- reporter Viveca Novak is the one who set him on the trail of the Hadley e-mail back in the first part of 2004, long before Karl could have known that Cooper was on the hot seat. How this is supposed to exonerate Rove, we don't know.

According to VandeHei, Luskin says that this conversation took place in January of 2004 and Luskin told Rove about it before he went before the grand jury:

One possible explanation of why the date is so important is that Luskin could contend it would have been foolish for Rove to try to cover up his role when he knew -- because of Novak's disclosure to Luskin -- that a number of people knew he had talked to Cooper and that it probably would soon become public.

The "why would he do something so stupid" defense rarely works and Luskin knows it. If this is his story he just threw the Hail Mary to the wrong end zone. In fact, the story is so absurd that VandeHei's the only one who's reporting it.

The conventional wisdom is that Luskin claimed that he started the e-mail search after he talked to Viveca Novak in either March or May, prompting Rove to go before the grand jury in October to say the e-mail jogged his memory and he now remembered the whole thing. We all assume that this is a crappy defense because it wouldn't have taken between March and October (or May and October) to locate this e-mail. (But as Jeralyn points out, it's possible that Luskin turned this e-mail over and offered up Rove's recantation earlier than October and that Fitzgerald just didn't call him to testify before then for unknown reasons.) . . .

I'm sure there are missing elements in what we know of Rove's story, but this is the gist of what we know. He lied to the FBI about being Novak's source. He says he has forgotten important conversations and when he belatedly does remember them, he remembers them very differently than others do. He only "finds" important documents months after they are subpoenaed and when they can be used to bolster his explanations. At the final hour, just as he is about to be indicted, his lawyer comes forward with yet more undisclosed information.

Time after time, Rove has played Fitzgerald for a chump, doling out bits of information only as he has to as if he were playing the Washington spin game instead of dealing with a federal prosecutor. But unlike the credulous DC press corps, who seem to have trouble keeping this story straight in their minds, Fitzgerald has a cadre of prosecutors and FBI agents, as well as a memory like a steel trap, that is keeping track of all this. Rove can't spin his way out of this.

Fitzgerald reportedly meeting with grand jury today to present the case

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Fitzgerald_to_present_more_information_to_1213.html

More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013402.html

The wrong kind of delay

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4775
He strongarms Denny the Meatpuppet into pushing the opening of the House back to January 31 in hopes that his legal problems in Texas might be resolved, allowing him to reclaim the Majority Leader's post that is rightfully his, only to have that meanie Ronnie Earle appeal Judge Pat Priest's decision to drop the conspiracy charge against DeLay, which could delay DeLay's trial on money laundering charges by several months.

David Sirota’s Corruption Corner (he’ll be busy)

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/12/corruption-digest-12905.html

More: http://www.slingshot.org/2005/12/09/sirotas-corruption-digest/

Corruption convergence

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_11.php#007239
Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle subpoenas Cunningham coconspirator #1 Brent Wilkes in his on-going investigation of Tom DeLay.

More: http://makeashorterlink.com/?W4B06205C

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/13/delay-and-the-duke

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003253.html

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003254.html

The DeLay effect

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/13/115850/48
No fewer than four Republican members of Congress in "vulnerable" seats have received recent internal polling data that shows "a Tom DeLay effect" that appears to give "any Democrat" on the ballot question an average of 10 percentage points against the incumbent. . . In one such district, Tom DeLay has name identification over 75% and more than half of those respondents view him unfavorably. . . And what's the number one reason why Independents who were polled react negatively to Tom DeLay? "The culture of corruption". . .

More: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/12/13/internal_polling_shows_a_delay_effect.html

The Bush effect

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-support-undermines-santorums-re.html
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's support of President Bush hurts his chances for re-election next year, Pennsylvania voters said by a 2-1 margin in a poll released Tuesday. . . More than one-third of all Republicans surveyed in the Quinnipiac University poll also said Santorum's re-election prospects aren't helped by his support of the president.

[NB: I know the conventional wisdom of the moment is that Bush’s popularity is “rebounding” – that is, rising from the sub-basement to the cellar –- but even that may not be true:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/12/13/bush_approval_fades_again.html
"Just 38% of Americans said they approve of the job the President is doing, down from 41% in a national Zogby America survey conducted last month."

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2415
[Carpetbagger] It seems to me that the country has lowered its standards to the extent that the absence of horrible news is enough to give Bush a few extra points in the polls. For many voters, the fact that no Bush administration officials have been arrested in the past few weeks may be a sign that ethics at the White House have improved. The war hasn't gotten noticeably worse. The president hasn't badly flubbed a response to a massive natural disaster lately.]

The gender effect

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/13/123131/40
Republicans have just two female candidates for Senate in 2006, Jeanine Pirro in New York and Katherine Harris in Florida. Yet for various reasons, the Republican establishment is working to push both of them out of the race. The preferred tactic? Seed rumors among political reporters that the two will be exiting the race soon. Such rumors put the candidates on the defensive, serve to dry up fundraising, which then serves as further ammunition for those trying to push them out.

The CNN effect (note the juxtaposition of their links)

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4778
Poll: Most say Bush has no Iraq victory plan | Bush victory plan

[NB: And do they HAVE to swallow Bush’s focused-grouped redescription of his “stay the course” strategy as a “victory plan”?]

The U.S. doesn’t have secret prisons in Europe. . . any more

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/12/13/cia.europe.ap/index.html
A Swiss investigator probing claims of secret CIA prisons in Europe said his committee has evidence that supports allegations that prisoners were transferred between countries and temporarily held "without any judicial involvement."

"Legal proceedings in progress in certain countries seemed to indicate that individuals had been abducted and transferred to other countries without respect for any legal standards," lawmaker Dick Marty said in a written report summarizing his investigations so far.

Marty told a news conference he believed the United States was no longer holding prisoners clandestinely in Europe and believes they were moved to North Africa in early November, when reports about secret U.S. prisons first emerged in The Washington Post. . .

The McCain amendment doesn’t ban outsourcing of torture to other countries (so-called “rendition”) – torture is fine as long as U.S. personnel aren’t doing it. (Rendition was originally included in McCain’s bill, but he dropped it under pressure.) As a result, if his ban passes, rendition will just increase

http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/12/rendition_and_m.html

The Pentagon is already looking for ways around it

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/politics/14detain.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/14/torture-rewrite/
[Nico] The basis of the McCain amendment is establishing the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation as the uniform standard for interrogation. That manual explicitly prohibits the use of so-called “coercive interrogation techniques.”. . . Realizing this, the Pentagon has one-upped McCain, and simply rewritten the manual. . .

Matt Yglesias nails the key point

http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/14/02656/792
While it would certainly be better to pass the McCain Amendment than not to pass it, here's the problem: At the end of the day, it's not as if all this torturing has really been going on because torture is legal and so if we change the law it all comes to an end.

The issue, with regard to torture, has always been that despite its denials the administration is, as a matter of policy, engaging in a lot of torture and torture-esque behaviors. . . Better laws would be nice, but some of us thought we covered those bases already with the Geneva Convention, and the reason that wound up not working is that the people in charge didn't want it to work. An administration staffed by people committed to human rights wouldn't let this stuff go on. Given an administration lacking such commitments, the abuses are all-but-inevitable irrespective of the law.

More: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/13/20599/917

The fallacy of the “ticking time bomb” argument for torture – simple, clear, and devastating. Can we just put this thing to rest now?

http://www.slate.com/id/2132195/

More on Bush’s flippant announcement of 30,000 Iraqi war dead

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/13/162250/40

John Bolton: the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal’s mole to check up and report on what Colin Powell was doing, now undermining another Sect’y of State

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001142.html

Repubs can’t lower a tax affecting 18.5 million Americans (and more and more every year), because lowering taxes for the super-rich is a higher priority

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-tax14dec14,1,5294917.story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301869.html

The Solicitor General documents showing Alito’s hostility to abortion would never have been made public in the first place if the White House could have prevented it. . . so what else aren’t we seeing?

http://www.slingshot.org/2005/12/13/347/

Whoa. . . snap!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_11.php#007235
Howard Fineman, Newsweek's chief political correspondent, said Monday night in the first program of a Drew University lecture series, that Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward. . . went from being an outsider "burning the beltway" with his investigative work in the 1970s Watergate scandal under President Nixon to being, " an official court stenographer of the Bush administration."

Here’s another lapdog at the Washington Post: Richard Cohen, explaining how the problem in Iraq has been. . . an excess of idealism

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_digbysblog_archive.html#113454144543153837

Meanwhile, L’Affaire Froomkin continues. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/13/212031/52

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2417

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/12/the_blogs_are_cooking_with_dan.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_digbysblog_archive.html#113443109245404377

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/12/13/22/32/smackdown-7/

This is the dumbest thing I’ve read in a while. You see, there’s too much antagonism between the govt and the press these days, and the problem is that the press has just become much too skeptical. What we need is some compact of understanding and cooperation – isn’t this EXACTLY what the Bush admin has tried to do? It’s the most anti-press administration in my lifetime, and that includes Nixon (thanks to Athenae for the link)

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/13/at_war_government_and_the_media/

More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4786

Bonus item: the cushiest job in all the media has to be the post of Bill O’Reilly’s fact checker – that person doesn’t have to do ANYTHING

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130006
On December 9, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed on both Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor and the nationally syndicated The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly that the Plano Independent School District (Texas) "told students they couldn't wear red and green because they were Christmas colors." He labeled the alleged ban "fascism.". . .

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:49 AM

 
MORE OR LESS

Bush offers Part Three of his four-part effort to tell us how well things are going in Iraq. Today’s upbeat assessment includes the figure of 30,000 Iraqis killed. Does that mean 30,000 Iraqi troops (our allies)? Or does it include civilians killed by terror? Does it include the civilians we have killed as “collateral damage”? Does it include Iraqi insurgents we’ve killed (“the enemy”)? Does it include Iraqis killed during “shock and awe” and the shortages of food, water, power, and hospital care in its aftermath?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/12/international/middleeast/12cnd-bush.html

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Bush-Text.html?pagewanted=8
BUSH: How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis.

[NB: “More or less”? Man, is that COLD, or what? Imagine someone talking about U.S. casualties that way]

More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4773

Nancy Pelosi replies

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008602
The President cannot have it both ways. In his speech in Philadelphia today, President Bush noted the contributions that U.S.-imposed benchmarks and milestones have played in Iraq's move toward democracy. He described his refusal to let deadlines slide, and spoke approvingly of the hard work Iraqis were willing to do when they understood that deadlines would not be moved.

If there are benchmarks and milestones, and they are being met, then why aren't our troops on their way home? The President's contention that setting political milestones in Iraq has led to results makes his refusal to set conditions for bringing American troops home all the more inexplicable. By clinging to his vague 'as Iraqi forces stand up, U.S. forces will stand down' formulation, President Bush guarantees a long and costly further American military presence in Iraq.

Part of being in a bubble is that you don’t know it’s a bubble, right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/12/12/BL2005121200655.html
In a rare, one-on-one interview with President Bush this morning, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams showed the president the latest Newsweek cover , which depicts Bush trapped inside a big soap bubble, and asked if it's true that he's out of touch. . .

The president notes that he talks to a lot of people, but doesn't read newsweeklies. . .

Williams: . . . Time Magazine says you're out there talking to people, and Newsweek says you're in here not talking to people. So what is the truth, Mr. President?"

Bush: "Well, I'm talking to you. You're a person."

Williams: "This says you're in a bubble, you have a very small circle of advisers now."

Bush: "Yeah."

Williams: "Is that true?"

Bush: "Uh."

Williams. "Do you feel in a bubble?"

Bush: "No, I don't feel in a bubble. I mean, you feel in a bubble in the sense that I can't go walking out the front gate and go shopping, like I'd love to do for my wife -- although I'm a man, I'm not going to tell you what I'm gonna buy her."

Williams: "I understand that."

Bush: "Look, I, I, uh, I feel like I'm getting really good advice from very capable people, and that people from all walks of life inform me and inform those who advise me. And I feel very comfortable that, that I'm very aware of what's going on.

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10417159/site/newsweek

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1139848,00.html

Comment: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007754.php

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008595

Nope, no bubble at all. . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10417159/site/newsweek
[Newsweek] A White House aide, who like virtually all White House officials (in this story and in general) refused to be identified for fear of antagonizing the president, says. . .

Bush may be the most isolated president in modern history, at least since the late-stage Richard Nixon. It's not that he is a socially awkward loner or a paranoid. He can charm and joke like the frat president he was. Still, beneath a hail-fellow manner, Bush has a defensive edge, a don't-tread-on-me prickliness. . .

Bush's real friends are his old Texas and school buddies from Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School. He calls them all the time—but the talk is usually comforting and jocular, of sports and old days. They rarely dispense pointed political advice or brace him with bad news. Chief of staff Card is widely described by insiders as a decent and honorable man, but also as a family retainer who tells the president what he wants to hear. . .

What Bush actually hears and takes in, however, is not clear. And whether his advisers are quite as frank as they claim to be with the president is also questionable. . . "I got the sense that his staff was not telling him the bad news," says the lawmaker. "This was not a case of him thinking positive. He just didn't have any idea of the political realities there. It was like he wasn't briefed at all.". . .

In subtle ways, Bush does not encourage truth-telling or at least a full exploration of all that could go wrong. . .

Bush generally prefers short conversations—long on conclusion, short on reasoning. He likes popular history and presidential biography (Theodore Roosevelt, George Washington), but by all accounts, he is not intellectually curious. Occasional outsiders brought into the Bush Bubble have observed that faith, not evidence, is the basis for decision making. Psychobabblers have long had a field day with the fact that Bush quit drinking cold turkey and turned around his life by accepting God. His close friends agree that Bush likes comfort and serenity; he does not like dissonance. He has long been mothered by strong women, including his mother and wife. A foreign diplomat who declined to be identified was startled when Secretary of State Rice warned him not to lay bad news on the president. "Don't upset him," she said. . .

I ask you, is this the decision of a man who pays any attention at all to the real context of his circumstances?

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008601
[Time] However improbable the odds at this point or modest his short-term goals, aides say, Bush still subscribes to Rove's long-held dream that his will be the transformational presidency that lays the groundwork for a Republican majority that can endure, as Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal coalition did, for a half-century or more. Once he gets past the midterm elections, Bush plans to introduce a concept that, if anything, is even more ambitious than his failed Social Security plan: a grand overhaul that would include not only that program but Medicare and Medicaid as well.

One of the rat’s nests being uncovered by the Cunningham investigation is the implication of defense consulting firms in phony prewar intelligence. Like Chalabi himself, you had people who knew what the U.S. govt wanted to hear, and were only too happy to provide them with it (for a hefty fee). Laura Rozen tracks down the story

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003244.html
Could a contractor accused of bribing US government officials have contributed to the corruption of the intelligence by which the US went to war?. . . What the Wilkes-Wade-Cunningham larger story reveals is the vulnerability of the US government appropriations and contracting process -- even its most sensitive elements - to unscrupulous people, whose chief interests are not necessarily motivated by concern for the well being of the United States, but, in this case, apparently, self-enrichment. It's really the story of a security breach, and how easily penetrated were two of the most national security-sensitive Congressional committees by those who targeted them and others for just that purpose. And they were targeted in the classic ways spies target recruits -- by first identifying who would be useful, and then identifying their weaknesses. . .

More: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003245.html

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003252.html

Damned democracy

http://crookedtimber.org/2005/12/12/survey-shows-majority-of-iraqis-disapprove-of-invasion/
Today 50.3 per cent of Iraqis polled answered that the invasion was somewhat or absolutely wrong. That’s an increase from 39.1 per cent in last year’s survey.

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4771
More than two-thirds of those surveyed oppose the presence of troops from the United States and its coalition partners and less than half, 44 percent, say their country is better off now than it was before the war, according to an ABC News poll conducted with Time magazine and other media partners.

More: http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/12/103756/20

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/abctime-poll-on-iraq-full-tabulation.html

Uppity natives

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4770
In an interview, Prince Turki al Faisal [the new Saudi ambassador] said even if the United States had not invaded Iraq, global terrorism would have continued. "Going into Iraq may have accentuated or accelerated that process," he said.

Turki also said, "The U.S. for much of mankind has always stood as an example of. . . due process, human rights, innocent before proven guilty. If any of these precepts and principles are flouted by the promoter. . . then that affects all of us."

More on phony journalism in Iraq

http://susiemadrak.com/2005/12/12/17/16/buying-truth/

ACLU pressing for information on CIA secret prisons

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/ACLU_pushes_for_release_of_prison_1212.html

Plans for another attack on Iran’s nuclear capabilities?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007755.php

One thing we’ve learned through the Plame affair is the symbiotic relation of many front-rank journalists and the sources they cultivate (who are also seeking to manipulate and use them): Bob Novak, Judith Miller, Bob Woodward, and now Viveca Novak. Sometimes these journalists have clearly crossed a line where their own need for access has led them to be – knowingly or not – co-conspirators in the cover-up and control of information. All very seedy stuff, right?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_digbysblog_archive.html#113442468985964959

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001658562

So, what is the ombudsperson of the Washington Post exercised about? The lies of their star reporter Bob Woodward? Huh-uh. They’re worried that columnist Dan Froomkin is too liberal. And the evidence for this? (hold onto your hat) THE FACT THAT TOO MANY LEFTY BLOGS LIKE THIS ONE LINK TO HIM

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2005/12/white_house_bri.html

Don’t miss this: http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_firedoglake_archive.h