Bush upset Dems didn't 'Blink'

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2008-02-15 11:42am

The House of Representatives defied the White House yesterday by refusing to make an expiring surveillance law permanent, prompting a harsh exchange between Republicans and Democrats as they prepared for an extended, election-year battle over national security.

The episode was a rare uprising by Democrats against the White House on a terrorism issue, and it inspired caterwauling on both sides about the dire ramifications of the standoff.

Republicans said Democrats were putting the nation at risk, while President Bush offered to delay his scheduled departure for Africa today to reach a deal. Democrats responded with charges of administration recklessness and fearmongering.

The conflict erupted on the same day that House Democrats approved contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers over their refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the mass firings of U.S. attorneys.

That vote -- resulting in the first citations ever issued against White House officials -- infuriated the Bush administration and helped torpedo a short-lived political truce with Democrats, who had celebrated the signing of a bipartisan economic stimulus package on Wednesday. Republicans staged a walkout before the vote.

The surveillance dispute centers on the Protect America Act, a temporary law approved over Democratic misgivings last August. It expanded the powers of the government to monitor the communications of foreign suspects without warrants, including international phone calls and e-mails passing through or into the United States. It is set to expire at the end of the day tomorrow.

The Bush administration wants to make the law permanent, while adding legal immunity for telecommunication companies that were sued for invasions of privacy after helping U.S. intelligence agencies conduct warrantless wiretapping. The Senate has approved a bill backed by the White House, but the House has balked at the immunity provision and raised other objections because of civil-liberties concerns.

Without the law, administration officials said yesterday in interviews and statements, the monitoring of terrorist groups overseas will be severely hampered. Telecom firms may also become reluctant to help the National Security Agency and other U.S. intelligence agencies conduct surveillance, officials said.

"If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning will be compromised," Bush said in a hastily arranged news appearance on the South Lawn of the White House. He said that intelligence officials were "waiting to see" if Congress would "tie their hands."

Democrats immediately said that the expiration of the temporary law would have little, if any, immediate impact on intelligence gathering. "He has nothing to offer but fear," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters after Bush's address.

"I regret your reckless attempt to manufacture a crisis over the reauthorization of foreign surveillance laws," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in a letter to Bush, in defense of his colleagues in the House. "Instead of needlessly frightening the country, you should work with Congress in a calm, constructive way."

The acrimony reflects the long-simmering anger among some Democratic lawmakers and their liberal allies over their inability to thwart Bush on Iraq policy and terrorism issues since the Democrats took control of Congress last year after the 2006 elections. It also indicates a new willingness to risk election-year attacks by Republicans who say that Democrats are unfit to protect the country.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said the Democrats will pay a political price for leaving a national security issue unfinished and recessing for a break. "They're just playing with fire on this," he said.

The secret court directives issued under the Protect America Act are valid for a year, meaning that all will remain in effect until at least August, intelligence officials said. The underlying law that has governed covert spying for 30 years, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, will also remain in effect.

In addition, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Sylvestre Reyes (D-Tex.), said in a letter to Bush yesterday that existing surveillance orders "may cover every terrorist group without limitation," and that new groups, telephone numbers and e-mails can be added to those orders regardless of whether the temporary law expires.

"If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don't have enough domestic spying powers," Reyes wrote. "It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations -- including al-Qaeda -- that have gained strength since 9/11."

Bush has used the veto pen to block repeated Democratic efforts to put restrictions on war funding and has won most of the tools he considers necessary to wage the fight against terrorists despite criticism from civil libertarians. Bush also threatened a veto during the surveillance bill dispute, saying he would reject any legislation that reached his desk without retroactive immunity for the telecom firms.

Several Democrats said yesterday that many in their party wish to take a more measured approach to terrorism issues, and they refused to be stampeded by Bush. "We have seen what happens when the president uses fearmongering to stampede Congress into making bad decisions," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). "That's why we went to war in Iraq."

White House officials and their allies were angry that the Democrats did not "blink," as one outside adviser said. The decision to defy the White House came in the form of a weeklong adjournment of the House yesterday afternoon.

Pelosi said she instructed committee chairmen to begin talks with their Democratic counterparts in the Senate, who this week supported the administration's position on the surveillance bill, suggesting that a compromise might be possible in the coming weeks.

The move prompted House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to stage a walkout with scores of other GOP lawmakers just before Democrats voted to cite the two Bush aides for contempt of Congress.

"We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us," Boehner said. He then told his colleagues: "Let's just get up and leave."

In a conference call with reporters yesterday, Kenneth L. Wainstein, head of the Justice Department's national security division, said that the Protect America Act had enabled surveillance agencies to fill "the intelligence gaps that were so troubling to us." Expiration of the law, he said, would force the Justice Department to seek new surveillance approval, requiring more paperwork and time, if the telecommunication provider of a new terrorism suspect is not covered under existing directives.

Ben Powell, general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said on the same call that the government had "obtained significant information" about terrorists using its expanded powers, allowing it to disrupt "planned terrorist attacks" and to gain intelligence about a potential suicide bomber. He did not provide details.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2008-02-15 11:49am

Holy shit; Democrats find testicles, Republicans weakly bitch about it.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2008-02-15 12:17pm

Anguirus wrote:Holy shit; Democrats find testicles, Republicans weakly bitch about it.

Havokeff MSUT draw this for posterity.

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2008-02-15 12:18pm

The dems need to hype the immunity aspect of the bill. Xenu knows the sheeple don't give a crap about their freedom from warrantless searches, but they do have bitter, bitter hate for the shitty US telcos and would love to have them burn.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-02-15 12:30pm

Victory Dance! Thank Xenu this thing did not pass, Immunity can't be un-given post 2008 election. It's simply impossible. So as long as this does not go through congress, the chance for prosecution does not slip us by.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2008-02-15 12:48pm

If your representatives were involved in this, please phone their offices and thank them; it can't hurt to let 'em know they've got support from their districts.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2008-02-15 01:05pm

According to Glenn Greenwald, the House mainly rejected the bill because they were miffed about how the White House and Senate had tried to mess with their procedures, by sending them a bill and telling them it must be passed in under two days. I'm also thinking that a secondary cause may be that, given the number of representatives and the relative decentralization of power in the House in the absence of a Tom Delay figure, it was just a lot harder for the Telecoms to buy the House the way they bought the Senate.

Of course, there is the off-chance that Democrats will notice, now that they have tried it for basically the first time in their year and a half in power, that spitting in Bush's eye is a good decision from a public-relations perspective.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2008-02-15 02:33pm

So..... why no details about the planned terrorist attacks?
You already told them how you disrupted it, its via the Patriot Act and spying via telecoms. Why the hell is there no follow-up details? Or has the Bush administration finally realised how tenuous many of its terrorist cases are?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-02-15 02:35pm

Anguirus wrote:Holy shit; Democrats find testicles, Republicans weakly bitch about it.

If you qualify that as the House Democrats found their testicles, I'll agree with you.
As far as the Senate is concerned, Harry Reid voluntarily let himself be de-balled and supported retroactive immunity for the telcos.

Fuck him, fuck GWB, and fuck anyone who supports this bullshit.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2008-02-15 02:48pm

So I'm guessing Glocksman might like names and districts for the scum who capitulated? Just askin'.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-02-15 02:55pm

SirNitram wrote:So I'm guessing Glocksman might like names and districts for the scum who capitulated? Just askin'.

If my own Congresscritters voted for immunity, you're damn tootin I'd like to know.
I live in Indiana, and my Congressional district is IN-08.
Brad Ellsworth is my current Democratic Congressman.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2008-02-15 02:59pm

He's clear. Here are the Dems:

Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Max Baucus (D-MT), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Bob Casey (D-PA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Tom Carper (D-DE), and Mary Landrieu (D-LA).

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-02-15 03:01pm

Good.
As much as I disagree with Bayh on certain issues, it's nice to see that he has the normal issue of testicles.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-02-15 03:02pm

If it weren't for the fact that the guy running against him was a horse faced cunt, I'd wish I had voted against Bill Nelson... They should have left his ass in space.

Losonti Tokash · Post by **Losonti Tokash** » 2008-02-15 03:05pm

Flagg wrote:If it weren't for the fact that the guy running against him was a horse faced cunt, I'd wish I had voted against Bill Nelson... They should have left his ass in space.

Same thing for Ben Nelson. I actually like Hagel, but the fucking idiots that live here went batshit when he dared to criticize Bush and so he's unelectable.

Time to send Nelson an angry letter.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-02-15 03:56pm

PainRack wrote:So..... why no details about the planned terrorist attacks?
You already told them how you disrupted it, its via the Patriot Act and spying via telecoms. Why the hell is there no follow-up details? Or has the Bush administration finally realised how tenuous many of its terrorist cases are?

It's no different from how our Govt does it. THere is, however, no equivalent for a ISA law in the US, and there never will be, short of a fascist president in office, for which the current president is probably the most fascist in recent times.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2008-02-16 12:17am

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: It's no different from how our Govt does it. THere is, however, no equivalent for a ISA law in the US, and there never will be, short of a fascist president in office, for which the current president is probably the most fascist in recent times.

Fin, don't be an idiot. Ben Powell claims that the Patriot act had allowed the government to gain significiant information about terrorists, allowing it to disrupt the planned attacks and gain intel about a potential sucide bomber.
So, why no details? If this was true, or plausible in the court of law, I see no reason why they wouldn't had brought up the case to defend their act. Compare this to the early years when the Bush adminstration crowed that they had captured terrorists operating in the US. Either Ben Powell is lying, or he's aware that the case that has been built up isn't sustainable in the courts. The old argument about national security is pointless, since he already made it clear how the government obtained the information.

At least when we detained the JI cell, there were specific details about why they were picked up, although the subsequent details showed that they weren't captured based on local intelligence, but rather on data from Afghanistan. You need to stop bringing that hard on into every single debate and address the issue.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-02-16 12:57am

PainRack wrote:Fin, don't be an idiot. Ben Powell claims that the Patriot act had allowed the government to gain significiant information about terrorists, allowing it to disrupt the planned attacks and gain intel about a potential sucide bomber.

So, why no details? If this was true, or plausible in the court of law, I see no reason why they wouldn't had brought up the case to defend their act. Compare this to the early years when the Bush adminstration crowed that they had captured terrorists operating in the US. Either Ben Powell is lying, or he's aware that the case that has been built up isn't sustainable in the courts. The old argument about national security is pointless, since he already made it clear how the government obtained the information.

At least when we detained the JI cell, there were specific details about why they were picked up, although the subsequent details showed that they weren't captured based on local intelligence, but rather on data from Afghanistan. You need to stop bringing that hard on into every single debate and address the issue.

Look dimwit, our own Govt doesn't bring these "JI" buggers to court on very flimsy reasons no different from even what this current administration espouses. So what if they tell us what they are about to do? I don't fucking see them in court and thus the Govt's claims can be hear say for all I fucking care!

From "enemy combatants" to Guatamano to military tribunals, all of this follows the same damn pattern of an administration who would rather shun the possibility of failing to prosecute these cases in civil court because they either had very little evidence, or they would rather just lock them away out of sight out of mind. What the fuck is new or even not obvious to you that you simply cannot accept at first hand? Did you not read a case not too long ago where the DOJ failed to prosecute and get a "terrorist" charged? And just where is Powell now?

And there you go jumping in the minute I mention Singapore. Touchy again eh? Typical inferior complex lots of Singaporeans have.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2008-02-16 01:00am

SirNitram wrote:He's clear. Here are the Dems:

Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Max Baucus (D-MT), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Bob Casey (D-PA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Tom Carper (D-DE), and Mary Landrieu (D-LA).

Hey, that's MY Congresscritter!

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-02-16 01:15am

You're upset that your Senator was against retroactive immunity?

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2008-02-16 01:27am

Glocksman wrote:You're upset that your Senator was against retroactive immunity?

Wait, I thought that was the list of congressfolk who voted for the bill?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-02-16 01:46am

Molyneux wrote:
Glocksman wrote:You're upset that your Senator was against retroactive immunity?
Wait, I thought that was the list of congressfolk who voted for the bill?

In retrospect I think it was and I misinterpreted Nitram's post.
Consider the comment withdrawn.

DarkSilver · Post by **DarkSilver** » 2008-02-16 08:50am

My congresscritter in that list to...

but unfortunately, Landrieu never had balls in the first place, so it was highly doubtful she'd grow a pair during her congressional tenure...

Qwerty 42 · Post by **Qwerty 42** » 2008-02-16 09:19am

Feingold and Obama absent from the list, as one would come to expect.

D.Turtle · Post by **D.Turtle** » 2008-02-16 12:05pm

SirNitram wrote:He's clear. Here are the Dems:

Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Max Baucus (D-MT), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Bob Casey (D-PA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Tom Carper (D-DE), and Mary Landrieu (D-LA).

Those are the Dems who voted against the amendment that would have removed immunity from the FISA bill.

Here is the complete vote:

U.S.Senate Roll call wrote: Statement of Purpose: To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government.

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---31
Akaka (D-HI),Baucus (D-MT),Biden (D-DE),Bingaman (D-NM),Boxer (D-CA),Brown (D-OH),Byrd (D-WV),Cantwell (D-WA),Cardin (D-MD),Casey (D-PA),Dodd (D-CT),Dorgan (D-ND),Durbin (D-IL),Feingold (D-WI),Harkin (D-IA),Kennedy (D-MA),Kerry (D-MA),Klobuchar (D-MN),Lautenberg (D-NJ),Leahy (D-VT),Levin (D-MI),Menendez (D-NJ),Murray (D-WA),Obama (D-IL),Reed (D-RI),Reid (D-NV),Sanders (I-VT),Schumer (D-NY),Tester (D-MT),Whitehouse (D-RI),Wyden (D-OR),

NAYs ---67
Alexander (R-TN),Allard (R-CO),Barrasso (R-WY),Bayh (D-IN),Bennett (R-UT),Bond (R-MO),Brownback (R-KS),Bunning (R-KY),Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE),Chambliss (R-GA),Coburn (R-OK),Cochran (R-MS),Coleman (R-MN),Collins (R-ME),Conrad (D-ND),Corker (R-TN),Cornyn (R-TX),Craig (R-ID),Crapo (R-ID),DeMint (R-SC),Dole (R-NC),Domenici (R-NM),Ensign (R-NV),Enzi (R-WY),Feinstein (D-CA),Grassley (R-IA),Gregg (R-NH),Hagel (R-NE),Hatch (R-UT),Hutchison (R-TX),Inhofe (R-OK),Inouye (D-HI),Isakson (R-GA),Johnson (D-SD),Kohl (D-WI),Kyl (R-AZ),Landrieu (D-LA),Lieberman (ID-CT),Lincoln (D-AR),Lugar (R-IN),Martinez (R-FL),McCain (R-AZ),McCaskill (D-MO),McConnell (R-KY),Mikulski (D-MD),Murkowski (R-AK),Nelson (D-FL),Nelson (D-NE),Pryor (D-AR),Roberts (R-KS),Rockefeller (D-WV),Salazar (D-CO),Sessions (R-AL),Shelby (R-AL),Smith (R-OR),Snowe (R-ME),Specter (R-PA),Stabenow (D-MI),Stevens (R-AK),Sununu (R-NH),Thune (R-SD),Vitter (R-LA),Voinovich (R-OH),Warner (R-VA),Webb (D-VA),Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 2
Clinton (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)

Emphasis mine.

Obama voted for removing immunity, Hillary did not vote.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Bush upset Dems didn't 'Blink'

Bush upset Dems didn't 'Blink'

Re: Bush upset Dems didn't 'Blink'