So sighed a friend of mine last night, alerting me to what the DC Democrats are up to now. Later today I’ll talk about other news, but right now, the results we achieved in November ’06 have me too riled to think of anything else.
Remember early August, when — seemingly scared-to-jelly by Trent Lott — our recess-minded Congress capitulated to the White House and let itself be bum-rushed into passing an expansion of FISA that gave Alberto Gonzales say on who in America would be wiretapped?
Remember how, all over the country, editorialists howled? Dem congresscritters rushed to repent and vow, “Congress must act. Congress is on trial here. I think we did the wrong thing in August. We have to correct it this fall”? Then Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell finally owned mumbled that he’d lied to the Senate?
Remember all that? So okay, ya think the Dems’ll hold firm and DO something here? Well, matter of fact, they will:
Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security Agency[,]
report Eric Lichtblau and Carl Hulse, leding the New York Times.
Although willing to oppose the White House on the Iraq war, [Capitol Hill Dems] remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence.
A Democratic bill to be proposed on Tuesday in the House would maintain for several years the type of broad, blanket authority for N.S.A. eavesdropping that the administration secured in August for six months. …
A competing proposal in the Senate, still being drafted, may be even closer in line with the administration plan, with the possibility of including retroactive immunity for telecommunications utilities that participated in the once-secret program to eavesdrop without court warrants. [Emph. mine]
The House bill includes future but not retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that help BushCo spy on us, you see. But in the Senate, Jay Rockefeller and Chris Bond are working on a compromise in which “retroactive immunity for the utilities [is] ‘under discussion,’ " according to Lichtblau and Hulse.
Now all this “nervous they’ll be called soft on terrorism” business is getting mighty old and tattered, isn’t it? I just have my doubts about that (read on). Seems to me, the Senate generally looks elsewhere for its values and cues.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has told private-equity firms in recent weeks that a tax-hike proposal they have spent millions of dollars to defeat will not get through the Senate this year, according to executives and lobbyists[,]
writes Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, front-paging the Washington Post. Whaddya bet the same contributors values and cues explain both situations? And predict both outcomes?
Oh, and how well is trusting BushCo to handle sensitive intelligence working out for us? Since, of course, they‘re not soft on terrorism? Maybe you should read Joby Warrick in WaPo:
A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release.
Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company’s Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news [yep, FOX] and broadcast worldwide.
The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group’s communications network. …
I swanny, between our doofus (and criminal) Administration, our doofus (and craven) Senate, and our doofus (and blabbery) media — what ARE we to do?
lotus
UPDATE: At Kos, BarbinMD has some good advice for them as seems to need it:
… Congressional Democrats will give George Bush both a “get out of jail free” card and a green light to continue spitting on the Constitution because they don’t want to look weak? If they do decide to roll over on this one, here’s a suggestion on how to avoid that: keep away from mirrors.
UPDATE II: Laura Rozen finds the Osama-video-breach story in the New York Sun too — only that otherwise-well-detailed version neglects to mention the White House > Fox News handoff. Hm, breaking new ground in burying ledes, aren’t they?
Lotus, your post drove me to the blogs of the three Dem presidential “frontrunners” to see how they address the problem of our government being sold to the highest bidder. Of the three blogs, Obama’s was the only one that listed government corruption at all, but didn’t go so far as to ban corporate campaign contributions, which is really the elephant in that particular room – “no lunches” ain’t gonna do it. I thought maybe I heard Edwards mention it sometime or other, but it’s not mentioned on his blog.
What’s a voter to do?
This voter doesn’t have a clue but is getting a roaring case of agita, op99.
I have to keep reminding myself about the next Supreme Court nomination, and the fact that Dems aren’t quite as egregious as Republicans in non-social issues, and markedly better in social issues. But the urge to just sit elections out is getting stronger.
Same here, which is an incredible state of affairs for me. I’m so corny, I’ve always loved to vote (no matter how rarely for winners). But there’s such a disconnect between vox populi and the DC answer to it anymore, I’ve begun to consider just saving my “breath.”