DKos: More Immunity Claims on Wiretapping from Obama DOJ

I'm getting a number of emails about this. People are pissed. After all, Obama did promise to filibuster FISA, once upon a time. More from McJoan:

In three separate cases in as many months, the Obama Justice Department has used the same arguments that the Bush administration Justice Department used to attempt to stop judicial review of extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping. In the Mohamed v. Jeppesen extraordinary rendition case, the Obama administration reiterated the Bush administration argument that the case should be dismissed to preserve "states secrets." Likewise, in the Al-Haramain wiretapping case, Obama's DOJ used the arguments of the Bush administration to argue, again, that state secrets should prevent the Al-Haramain case--in which the only secret isn't a secret because it was inadvertently shared with plaintiff's attorneys--from moving forward.

Late Friday, the Obama DOJ actually went the Bush administration one argument further, in a third case. In Jewel v. NSA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is "suing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T; customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records." The Obama administration filed its first response [pdf] to the suit Friday, demanding dismissal of the entire suit.

Read More......

Bush signs FISA law. ACLU sues to protect the U.S. Constitution.

George Bush signed the new FISA bill, which grants immunity to the telecoms, into law today. This was a big win for Bush and he dutifully thanked the Democrats like Steny Hoyer and Jay Rockefeller who made it happen.

But, because for some, the U.S. Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment, still matters, the ACLU is challenging the constitutionality of the new law in court. Hopefully, the courts will be the one branch of government that will respect the Constitution:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a landmark lawsuit today to stop the government from conducting surveillance under a new wiretapping law that gives the Bush administration virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans’ international e-mails and telephone calls. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work – which relies on confidential communications – will be greatly compromised by the new law.

This is the best quote from the release:

“A democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president or Congress can authorize a law that violates core constitutional principles,” said Christopher Dunn, Associate Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “The only thing compromised in this so-called ‘compromise’ law is the Constitution.”

Democrats have an uncanny ability to compromise when it's not necessary and is actually counter-productive. For whatever reason, some in the Democratic brain trust, such as it is, finds it necessary to negotiate with George Bush, despite approval ratings hovering in the mid-20s. That may explain why the approval rating for Congress is even lower.

We need better Democrats -- and more of them. Read More......

Bad news/Good news in the U.S. Senate today

It's been a wild day in the U.S. Senate.

First, the bad news: The Senate passed the FISA bill -- with telecom immunity -- by a vote of 69 - 28. Roll call here. That abominable affront to the U.S. Constitution is heading to Bush's desk -- and the ACLU is preparing to sue.

Now, the good news -- both legislative and personal: To a rousing ovation from his colleagues, Senator Ted Kennedy arrived back in the Capitol to vote on the Medicare bill, which passed by a veto-proof 69 - 30 margin. Kennedy's vote could have been critical. By one vote, a couple weeks ago, Senate Republicans had blocked movement on this legislation. That resulted in a huge backlash against the GOP. Doctors were irate and the AMA has been ran ads against Republican Senators. Obviously, Republican Senators got the message.

Bush was gleeful about the FISA bill, but has threatened a veto of this Medicare bill. John McCain was the one Senator who didn't vote today on Medicare. According to The Hill and CQ Politics, the so-called "Straight Talker" wouldn't even say how he'd vote. Very weak leadership.

Here's a link to a clip of Kennedy's return. You can't miss that thick white hair.

It was truly a triumphant return. Read More......

Obama's staff taking questions on FISA right NOW

Go to his blog right now if you care about FISA. Obama just issued a statement to those who are upset that he is supporting the FISA bill - a bill that includes retroactive immunity for phone companies that helped our government illegally spy on us, their customers. More importantly, his staff is taking questions for the next 20 minutes or so in the comments. Here's your chance. Read More......

Dems who supported FISA legislation, were they bought off by telcoms?

Looks like it.

House Democrats who flipped their votes to support retroactive immunity for telecom companies in last week’s FISA bill took thousands of dollars more from phone companies than Democrats who consistently voted against legislation with an immunity provision, according to an analysis by MAPLight.org.

In March, the House passed an amendment that rejected retroactive immunity. But last week, 94 Democrats who supported the March amendment voted to support the compromise FISA legislation, which includes a provision that could let telecom companies that cooperated with the government’s warrantless electronic surveillance off the hook.

The 94 Democrats who changed their positions received on average $8,359 in contributions from Verizon, AT&T; and Sprint from January, 2005, to March, 2008, according to the analysis by MAPLight, a nonpartisan organization that tracks the connection between campaign contributions and legislative outcomes.

As Joe noted earlier, something happened to get all these Dems to switch. And it seems that for a lot of them, what happened was $8,359. Hell of a cheap price to sell out your country. Read More......

Reid to vote against FISA bill

This is good, though not sure if does anything now, except put Obama in an odd position. Still, it's better than nothing. We're still getting screwed, and still shredding our Constitution and everything our country stands for in order to curry favor with the lobbyists at AT&T; whose company helped our government illegally spy on their own customers. Read More......

Obama supports FISA bill

McJoan has the details, including Obama's statement. Read More......

Bush/Hoyer FISA bill gets vote in the House today

UPDATE: The FISA bill passed 293-129. We'll post the roll call when it's available. Here's the roll call vote. Steny Hoyer and 104 other Democrats made George Bush very happy today. Maybe Bush will be nice to them now.

The House will vote on George Bush and Steny Hoyer's very flawed FISA bill today. In fact, it's being debated right now. It's a total cave in to George Bush. We thought the days of cowering before Bush were over. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Bush's approval rating is 29%. Yes, 29%. But, somehow, he's managed to roll the Democratic Majority Leader.

Last night, Keith Olbermann desconstructed what the bill is all about and explains this bill "gives President Bush exactly what he wants -- increased abilities to spy on Americans without warrants and a level of immunity for the telecom companies who already illegally spied on Americans for him." Keith's guest, legal scholar Jonathan Turley, called the new bill an "evisceration of the Fourth Amendment." He also stated "This bill has quite literally no public value for citizens or civil liberities."

Watch the Olbermann segment on FISA (you have to see an ad first, but it's worth it):


Call your House members today -- tell them to vote NO on the FISA sellout. The main number is 202-225-3121. Read More......

Steny Hoyer cut a bad FISA deal with immunity for telecoms on FISA and expects House Dems. to support it. They should oppose it.

The Hill reports that the House will vote on a new FISA deal tomorrow. The deal was negotiated by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

McJoan at DailyKos has more details on the bill, which does provide immunity for the telecoms.

This update from TPMMuckraker provides further confirmation of what is encompassed in Hoyer's bill:

Late Update: The Electronic Frontier Foundation says the deal offers broad immunity and says the Democrats caved in to pressure from the telecom industry and the White House.

"Whatever gloss might be put on it, the so-called 'compromise' on immunity is anything but: the current proposal is the exact same blanket immunity that the Senate passed in February and that the House rejected in March, only with a few new bells and whistles so that political spinsters can claim that it actually provides meaningful court review," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "We call on all members of Congress to reject this sham compromise and maintain the rule of law, rather than deprive the millions of ordinary Americans whose privacy rights were violated of their day in court."

EFF is representing plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit of AT&T; customers who claim their records were illegally handed over to the National Security Agency (NSA).

Call your member of Congress and tell them to vote NO on the bad FISA deal. The main number for the House is 202-225-3121. Let Steny Hoyer know this is a bad idea: (202) 225-4131.

UPDATE: Just got this statement from the ACLU:

"Congress is poised to once again pass disastrous surveillance legislation, now upping the ante with a thinly-veiled giveaway to some major campaign donors.

"This bill allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans’ communications. The court review is mere window-dressing – all the court would look at is the procedures for the year-long dragnet and not at the who, what and why of the spying. Even this superficial court review has a gaping loophole – ‘exigent’ circumstances can short cut even this perfunctory oversight since any delay in the onset of spying meets the test and by definition going to the court would cause at least a minimal pause. Worse yet, if the court denies an order for any reason, the government is allowed to continue surveillance throughout the appeals process, thereby rendering the role of the judiciary meaningless. In the end, there is no one to answer to; a court review without power is no court review at all."

"The Hoyer/Bush surveillance deal was clearly written with the telephone companies and internet providers at the table and for their benefit. They wanted immunity, and this bill gives it to them.

Read More......

Online book discussion with Richard Clarke

This came together a little bit last minute, so I apologize for the late notice, but I'm extremely pleased to announce that Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism coordinator for two presidential administrations and vocal critic of the Bush approach to security, will be hosting the discussion of my new book, Still Broken, this afternoon over at FireDogLake.com at 5 p.m.

The book recounts my time as an intelligence officer working for the Defense Intelligence Agency, essentially the spy arm of the Department of Defense, and explains how not only are the problems with intelligence analysis that led to things like 9/11 and the WMD debacle continuing, they're becoming institutionalized. Rewarding good news rather than accurate news is an issue that's becoming a permanent part of a broken intelligence process, and while I experienced that at the bottom of the process, Clarke saw how and why that kind of culture was created from the very top. He has been an insightful and courageous voice on terrorism, FISA and wiretapping issues, and Iraq, and I hope you'll head over to FireDogLake.com at 5 p.m. today to participate in the conversation about Still Broken. Read More......

White House angry that Dems didn't blink

See? Read More......

Bush and GOP kill extension of surveillance law

The surveillance law is so important that they're trying to kill it, in order to prove how important it really is. Now who doesn't care about catching Osama? Then again, these are the same people who haven't caught Osama in 7 years, and don't really seem all that interested in doing so. Read More......

White House admits our phone companies spied on us

Not that this is news, but it's the first time they've actually admitted it. Not surprisingly, it was Bush's slip of the tongue that confirmed it. Read More......

DiFi voting against FISA

Okay, if Dianne Feinstein is doing the right thing, then Democrats really have no excuse here. Here is her statement, just released:

“I have decided to vote against the FISA Bill before the Senate. This is not an easy decision because I strongly believe that we need to modernize the law relating to the gathering of foreign intelligence, and I support many of the provisions in the Senate bill.

However, I believe this bill didn’t do enough to protect against the assertion of executive power. I have said on many occasions that without the additional language to strengthen and tighten the exclusivity already in FISA, I could not support final passage.

I offered an amendment on this very issue. My amendment, which would have made it clear that FISA is the excusive authority for wiretapping U.S. persons for foreign intelligence purposes, received well more than a majority of this body – 57 votes. But it did not receive the 60 votes required. Given this strong vote, I remain hopeful that similar language will be included in a FISA bill that goes to the President.

There should never be another warrantless surveillance program. And I continue to believe that there should be a strong statement in law making it crystal clear that FISA must be followed, period.

Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate did not include such language and simply didn’t go far enough in protecting against executive power. That’s why I voted against the Senate bill.”

Read More......

SOTU Liveblog (and open thread)

9:09: And we're off! This is AJ; Joe and John may jump in at some point. Hey look! CheneyBot makes an appearance!

9:11: I guess this is what happens when your speechwriter jumps to WaPo . . . "Vigorous debate and we answered the call"? That, um, doesn't make any sense.

9:15: Look, it's Serious Bush. He's very sad about the economy he ruined. And he's threatening to veto a bill that he's already agreed to sign. Ooohhh, Cheney is VERY amused by the idea that some people pay taxes. Funny stuff!

9:20: In only four short years, we can get back to the surplus we had . . . right before Bush was elected. So he's telling me it'll take four years to undo eight years of economic damage? Um, that seems like a bad deal.

9:22: Doctors should make health care decisions! Unless insurance companies overrule them. Or if you can't afford to see a doctor. On the bright side, I loved Hillary's response to that, which was basically to roll her eyes. Also: trial lawyers are baaaaaaaad. Baddity bad bad. God forbid people should be have a remedy after being harmed.

9:26: Our children is learning!

9:29: I could have sworn we were at war somewhere . . . I guess I was wrong. Weird.

9:31: Will that new technology get us to Mars? I heard we're going to Mars. Mars, anybody? Mars?? I also heard that dedicating money to research helps it along. Energy research included, I'm pretty sure. Could be wrong.

9:35: Just about at the half hour mark. Nothing about Iraq. Nothing about Afghanistan. Maybe he's saving it for his closing argument or something.

9:38: Immigration is the "other" pressing issue. Not sure what the first one was . . . Mars? Bush is brutalizing his base on immigration right now -- he knows that his bill was torpedoed by Republicans, right?

9:41: Hey look, foreign policy! Yeah, how's that Lebanon thing working out right now? The ol' purple finger routine is pretty ridiculous at this point, no?

9:42: 9/11. Millions of people just did a shot. P.S. We're gonna get that Osama guy one of these days. Terrorists! Another shot, everybody. Try to keep up.

9:45: Iraq time. New mission: pay off our former enemies. Make no improvements in the political situation. Call it victory. This is very frustrating to watch. "Iraqi government has stepped up as well" . . . like, uh, how?

9:49: Iran. Drink. You know, it's easy to just keep claiming that we're going to win. But it would be kinda cool if Bush changed something -- anything -- in his strategy for those purposes.

9:53: Baghdad is making progress. Also, Baghdad needs to make progress. There seems to be some kind of logical issue there, but I can't figure out what it is. Iraq = source of stability. Mmmkay. Aaaaaaand they're GOING TO ATTACK TEH WASHINGTON!!11!11!! If you're scared enough, maybe you'll vote Republican.

9:55: Iran is TEH EVIL. Also, they're looking for nukes. Seriously. I'm sure this isn't scaremongering. Honest. "America will confront those who threaten our troops" . . . unless your name rhymes with Shmin Shladen.

10:00: FISA time -- Democrats are soft on terror, terror, 9/11 . . . I'm pretty sure I've seen this movie before. In related news, FDL just exploded.

10:02: Why did Bush grin when he mentioned Darfur? Hey, alliteration! That's a fun toy. Is this over yet? I'm in a room with about 25 people and it's devolved into shouting at the teevee. Just excruciating all around. I will now light myself on fire.

10:04: Look ma, no legacy! As far as I can tell, the big goals for this year are (1) reducing earmarks, and (2) scaring people. On the one hand, it's not very ambitious. On the other, he might actually be able to handle those goals. But none of our big problems will be helped. 2009 can't come soon enough. And with that, I'm outta here. Have a good night, and don't forget to drink lots of water before you go to bed tonight. TTFN. Read More......

FISA vote coming up shortly (well, several votes actually

UPDATE: Both cloture motions failed.

It's all rather confusing. Christy at FireDogLake sums up what's taking place:

First up in terms of voting will be the cloture vote that Sen. McConnell moved on Friday, regarding closing debate on S.2248. If the "no" votes take it, then there is a subsequent cloture vote to allow for a 30-day extension of the PAA, as I understand it, so that both the House and Senate can take time to go through the materials on NSA domestic spying that the Bush Administration finally turned over to the House Intel committee late last week. (Piles and piles of paper, which they have been pouring over all weekend, I hear.)

If that fails, then we are potentially back to debate on S.2248 and all of the proposed amendments that various groups have been trying to put forward to improve the bill -- or change it in some way, depending on the amendment. And we are again facing the potential of a Dodd filibuster, among other efforts to block wholesale passage of telecom immunity and basket warrants, among other constitutional and legal problems with the bill.

Or Sen. Reid could remove the bill from consideration altogether if the 30-day extension is not agreed to, the PAA would expire on Friday, and we would then go back to the FISA bill as it stood before this whole chain of idiocy began -- and we could start fresh with the House RESTORE Act as a base for negotiations potentially. Or any number of other scenarios that can be spun out from there.

After the jump, Senator Reid's remarks, as prepared for delivery on the Senate floor concerning these votes...

Just a few hours from now, President Bush will stand in the well of the House of Representatives, just a few hundred yards across the Capitol from here, to deliver his final State of the Union address.

It’s a fair bet that in this speech, he will continue the drumbeat started by Dick Cheney last week by trying to scare the American people into believing that if he does not get his way on the FISA bill now before us, America’s national security will be gravely jeopardized.

I have said on more than one occasion in recent days that the we face: a faltering economy at home and a failing foreign policy abroad – call upon us to rise above partisanship.

I have said on more than one occasion that we extend our hand to the President and Congressional Republicans and hope they join us in a genuine spirit of bipartisanship.

But, M. President, in my twenty years in Congress, I have not seen anything quite as cynical and counterproductive as the Republican approach to FISA.

The American people deserve to know that when President Bush talks about the foreign intelligence bill tonight, he’s doing little more than shooting for cheap political points – and we should reject his efforts.

Members of Congress from both parties have legitimate policy disagreements on FISA.

Some of us believe that history proves the need for more protections against government abuse. Others support the law the way it stands.

But all of us – Democrats and Republicans – want to wage an effective fight against terrorism.

All of us – Democrats and Republicans– want to give our intelligence professionals the tools they need to win this fight.

We will be taking two votes: the first is on whether to invoke cloture on the Bond-Rockefeller substitute to the FISA bill that we have on the floor.

The second is a cloture vote on whether to extend the authorities of the Protect America Act for an additional 30 days, while Congress works to pass a new FISA bill.

I will oppose cloture on the substitute, and will support cloture on the extension.

An extension will give the Senate time to fully debate this complex issue and pass a longer-term law that protects America without compromising the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

Both the Intelligence Committee bill and the Judiciary Committee bill authorize the same surveillance tools our intelligence community needs. Democrats and Republicans stand together on all of the terrorism-fighting components of these bills.

Some Democrats, including me, support the additional privacy protections in the Judiciary Committee bill. Others are satisfied with the protections in the Intelligence Committee bill.

But all of us believe that the Senate should have an opportunity to vote on these important questions.

As a result, many Democrats, including Chairman Rockefeller, are going to oppose cloture on the substitute because they object to the heavy-handed tactics of the Republicans we saw last week on this legislation.

The Republican leader filed cloture on this bill after it had been on the floor for just a few hours. He filed cloture after Republicans blocked every amendment they could from being offered and blocked all amendments from getting votes.

In simple terms, this means the Republicans were filibustering their own bill. Let me repeat that. The Republicans were filibustering their own bill. In my time in the Senate, I can’t remember this taking place.

Meanwhile, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, President Bush has actually threatened to veto a temporary extension of FISA.

Let’s remember – a temporary extension would guarantee all the terrorism-fighting tools remain in effect. There is absolutely no policy or security problem with an extension.

All it would do is give us more time to work toward bipartisanship while the law continues uninterrupted.

There is no reason to vote against an extension – or for the President to veto one- - except for political posturing.

None of us want the current law to expire. But if it does expire because of Republican tactics, surveillance will not end.

All surveillance orders issued under the law we passed last August, the Protect America Act, are effective for one year, so they will continue until at least August of 2008.

Even in a last resort -- if the current law expires, our intelligence professionals can get surveillance orders under the FISA law as it existed for several decades before we passed the Protect America Act last August. FISA includes provisions for emergency warrantless surveillance.

Again, no one is arguing that the law should be allowed to expire. Doing so would send the wrong message.

But the safeguards in place ensure that our war on terror will not be adversely affected. Anyone who says otherwise, from the President on down, is not being truthful.

Why do Democrats seek an extension? We still believe that bipartisanship is appropriate and possible. The economic stimulus package shows us that when circumstances are dire, we can work together.

The Republican leadership’s actions in this FISA debate have not given us reason for confidence that they are interested in working with us, but we owe it to the American people to give them every opportunity to work with us.

Democrats have requested a 30-day extension repeatedly. Each time, Republicans have said no.

Compromise, M. President, is a two way street. Bipartisanship is a two way street.

As I said last week, we are willing to pass an extension of current law for two weeks, 30 days, 18 months – whatever our colleagues want. But we need to pass an extension now if we are to ensure that the law does not expire. The House is going out of session shortly.

Already, Democrats have introduced several amendments to strengthen the bill:

- Sen. Feingold sought a vote on his amendment to provide FISA court documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Republicans blocked him.

- Sen. Whitehouse sought to offer an amendment to give the FISA court authority to review compliance with minimization rules, to protect the privacy of Americans whose communications are inadvertently intercepted. Republicans blocked him.

- Sen. Cardin sought to offer an amendment to sunset this legislation in four years, rather than six, to make sure the Congress returns to this legislation sooner to evaluate how it is working. Republicans blocked him.

- Sen. Kennedy sought to offer an amendment providing for a report by the Inspectors General of the relevant agencies to review the conduct of these programs in the past. Republicans blocked him.

- Sen. Feinstein sought to offer an amendment making crystal clear that FISA is the exclusive means by which the executive branch may conduct surveillance. Republicans blocked her.

Whether these amendments pass or not, M. President, we should be allowed to have votes on them. That is what the U.S. Senate does. We take up bills reported to us by our committees, senators offer amendments to them, and we let the Senate work its will.
The Republicans can’t block us from voting on any amendments and expect us to follow along. Senators are entitled to a vote on their amendments.

And with Republicans blocking every amendment, we haven’t gotten to the crucial issue of immunity.

Let’s not forget: the question of retroactive immunity wouldn’t even be before us if President Bush hadn’t ignored Congress and established his own process outside the law.

But far from taking responsibility for his actions, the President bullies and threatens the Congress he is supposed to work with. He is like the kid in the schoolyard taking his ball and going home when he doesn’t get his way.

When the President talks tonight about how important this program is and how it must continue, I say to him that he must reconsider his political posture and ask his colleagues in the Senate to support an extension.

We are the deliberative body. Let us deliberate.

I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on the substitute amendment, so that the Senate can return to considering and improving this bill.

We must pass a bill that gives our intelligence authorities the tools they need, while protecting the privacy of all Americans.

And I urge my colleagues to support the extension, so that we can ensure that current authority does not expire while Congress works to pass a new and stronger FISA bill.

Read More......

Filibusters

I'm sitting at progressive media summit in the US Senate today. It's an annual event that the Democrats put on for progressive bloggers and talk radio, so that we can meet with Senators and House members and talk about the issues of the day. Oops, strike that. It's apparently a chance for members of Congress to come give us speeches about how they're not blame for being outsmarted repeatedly by the Republicans, and then they get to flee before we can ask any questions. This is actually pretty pathetic, so far. (Stoller just got up and yelled at Senator Stabenow, asking her when we're going to get to ask questions - good for Matt.) Reid and Hoyer both just spoke and hurriedly left before anyone could ask a single question. Last year, we got to ask questions of the members coming to speak. They were good questions, hard questions. Perhaps that's why we're not getting to ask them this year. We're told that the schedule is a little behind, that's why we can't ask questions. So now we're watching some propaganda video showing us how wonderful the Democrats are. Much more important than actually talking to Senator Reid or Congressman Hoyer about Iraq or FISA. Yes, assemble all the top bloggers and talk radio folks in the same room and then piss them off. And who says the Democrats don't know anything about PR?

After the jump, why the Republicans are so good at using filibusters while the Dems pretty much sucked at it. (Actually, I kind of feeling like we're being filibustered right now.)

Anyway, back to the "substance." Senator Reid just explained to us, and Senator Stabenow just expanded on the point, that because of all the Republican filibusters - 62 to date - the Dems aren't able to do what we want them to do on Iraq and other issues.

Hmmm.... a few thoughts.

First, if the filibuster is such a potent weapon then why didn't Dems use it more often, and more effectively, when we were in the minority?

Second, Dems didn't filibuster as much, or as effectively, as the Republicans because it's not just how big your party's majority (or minority) is in the Senate. Just as important is how good a job you do on the public relations/spin surrounding the issue. All Bush has to do is say "Osama!" and the Democrats cave. That isn't because they don't have enough members in their majority, it's because the members they have don't have enough backbone. And no increase in their majority is going to change that fact, or their courage.

PS After Matt yelled at them, we now get to ask questions. Read More......

FISA updates

McJoan updates us, along with Jane and Glenn. Read More......

Bush says he'll veto 30-day extension of FISA

Well, now we get to see whether Senator Reid has bigger balls than George Bush. I like Senator Reid, we haven't been nearly as critical of him as some, but at this point, I'd like to see some leadership. I'd like to see someone who is actually smarter, and tougher, than George Bush. That isn't asking for much. But we have yet to see it. If Bush wants to endanger the war on terror with a stroke of his pen, why is it so hard to understand that he will be the one paying the price. He lies and lies and blusters and lies. And all the Democrats do is cave. The Democrats aren't just sending the message that all you have to do is yell "Osama!" and they'll cave. Democrats are also sending the message that they aren't willing to stick up for themselves, ever. And as someone said to me about John Kerry right before the November 2004 election: If he isn't willing to defend himself, how is he going to defend my kids? The Democrats are defining themselves as their worst stereotype: weak-kneed wimps. And in a time of war, let alone most other times, people don't vote for wimps.

Here is more on Bush now threatening a veto. And here is Senator Reid's response he just issued:

The White House threat to veto a short extension of the Protect America Act is shamefully irresponsible. The President is simply posturing in advance of Monday's State of the Union address.

When it comes to providing a strong long-term Foreign Intelligence Surveillance bill, Democrats in Congress are focused on solutions, while Republicans are obviously playing politics.

The House has already passed a FISA bill, and the Senate was ready to pass its own bill until Republicans blocked all amendments. At the same time, Democrats are ready to extend current law for as long as necessary, but Republicans are blocking that extension and the White House is threatening a veto.

It is shenanigans like this that make Americans so eager for change. We hope the American public will remember these Republican stunts when they go to the polling booth this November.

In any event, current law ensures that no ongoing collection activity will be cut off on February 1. There will be no terrorism intelligence collection gap. But if there is any problem, the blame will clearly and unequivocally fall where it belongs: on President Bush and his allies in Congress.

Read More......

To ensure success, Bush invokes national security to give immunity to telecoms.

Here we go again. The Hill reports that Bush is putting pressure on the Senate to pass his the FISA bill giving immunity to the telecoms -- and of course, Bush invokes national security:

“If Congress does not act quickly, our national security professionals will not be able to count on critical tools they need to protect our nation, and our ability to respond quickly to new threats and circumstances will be weakened,” Bush said in a statement.

We've seen this play out too many times. In a column from last November, Dan Froomkin explained what Bush does -- and how Democrats respond:

...Bush has learned that the higher he ratchets up the rhetoric, especially if he can accuse his critics of being weak on terror, the more likely Congressional Democrats are to fold. He's simply counting on that happening again.

Senator Dodd is going to filibuster FISA. This should be a no-brainer for Democrats.

But now that Bush has played the terror card, Democrats will undoubtedly cave. Not a question of whether it happens, more like how quickly it happens. Read More......