As we absorb our latest loss — it sucks being in the minority, you hardly ever win — we need to keep our eye on the ball and remember that we have hearings coming up on the illegal NSA wiretaps. Glenn Greenwald has been the go-to guy in this and he’s compiled ten questions that he’d like the Judiciary Committee to ask Alberto Gonzales. Glenn says:
I believe the paramount objective with these hearings is to force out into the open the theories of Presidential power which the Administration has embraced in order to justify its transgressions of FISA — not just as applied to eavesdropping but with respect to all decisions broadly relating to the question of how this country will respond to the threat of terrorism. Thus, the questions posed to Attorney General Gonzales should absolutely not be confined strictly to the question of the NSA eavesdropping program, but must explore how the Administration’s theories of its own power apply generally.
The Committee, with its questioning, must make clear to the public that this scandal is not about whether we should be eavesdropping on Al Qaeda, because everyone agrees that we should and must do that. That is why we have a law — FISA — which specifically authorizes eavesdropping on terrorists. Nobody opposes eavesdropping. The scandal is about — and these hearings must therefore emphasize — the scope of the President’s claimed powers, and specifically his claimed power to act without what the Administration calls “interference” from the Congress or the courts, even including — literally — engaging in actions which are expressly prohibited by the criminal law.
Read the entire post and look at the questions. Glenn is looking for feedback on this. He received some major media attention this past week from Knight Ridder, the NY Times and The Washington Post for his outstanding catch of the administration’s 2002 objection to loosening the FISA laws. He is in a position now to advance this another step.
Update: TalkLeft has a post up that says Russ Feingold is openly accusing Gonzales of lying in his confirmation hearings. It sure looks like he did.
Sen. Feingold: And I also would like you to answer this: does the president, in your opinion, have the authority acting as commander in chief to authorize warrantless searches of Americans’ homes and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the criminal and foreign intelligence surveillance statutes of this country?
MR. GONZALES: Senator, the August 30th memo has been withdrawn. It has been rejected, including that section regarding the commander in chief authority to ignore the criminal statutes. So it’s been rejected by the executive branch. I categorically reject it. And in addition to that, as I’ve said repeatedly today, this administration does not engage in torture and will not condone torture. And so, what you really are — what we’re really discussing is a hypothetical situation that —
So we only got 25 Senators to vote for a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee who, if defeated, would be replaced by someone just as bad by a president in the pocket of his radical right wing. Well.
Do you know how many votes the Republicans managed to get when uber wingnut Antonin Scalia was confirmed? 98. And Democrats had a majority. We didn’t have to even think about a filibuster. We couldn’t defeat Clarence Thomas and we had a majority, a huge push from women’s groups and a very dramatic set of hearings that went into the wee hours of the morning. It is very, very tough to do.
The lefty blogosphere has spent the last week trying to fire up support for a filibuster of Samuel Alito. This campaign was never likely to succeed, and today it failed as expected. But that’s not all: it failed by the embarrassingly lopsided margin of 72-25.
I’m glad the filibuster took place, because even in failure it puts a marker down for future court fights. Still, even given the amateurish way that Senate Dems handled it, I expected it to get more than 25 votes. So here’s today’s assignment: In 5,000 words or less, what does this say about the influence of the lefty blogosphere?
I didn’t expect it to get more than 25 votes and I’m frankly stunned that we did as well as we did. Indeed, something very interesting happened that I haven’t seen in more than a decade.
When it became clear that the vote was going against the filibuster, Diane Feinstein, a puddle of lukewarm water if there ever was one, decided to backtrack and play to the base instead of the right wing. That’s new folks. Given an opportunity to make an easy vote, until now she and others like her (who are legion) would always default to the right to prove their “centrist” bonafides. That’s the DLC model. When you have a free vote always use it to show that you aren’t liberal. That’s why she was against it originally — a reflexive nod to being “reasonable.”
Obama had to choke out his support for a filibuster, but he did it. A calculation was made that he needed to play to the base instead of the punditocrisy who believe that being “bold” is voting with the Republicans. Don’t underestimate how much pressure there is to do that, especially for a guy like Obama who is running for King of the Purple. The whole presidential club, including Biden joined the chorus.
The last time we had a serious outpouring from the grassroots was the Iraq War resolution. My Senator DiFi commented at thetime that she had never seen anything like the depth of passion coming from her constituents. But she voted for the war anyway. So did Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kerry and Reid. The entire leadership of the party. Every one of them went the other way this time. I know that some of you are cynical about these people (and ,well, they are politicans, so don’t get all Claud Rains about it) but that means something. Every one of those people were running in one way or another in 2002 and they went the other way. The tide is shifting. There is something to be gained by doing the right thing.
I keep hearing that it’s bad that these Senators “pandered” to the blogosphere and I don’t understand it. We want them to pander to the blogosphere. In their book Politicians Don’t Pander; Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness Lawrence R. Jacobs and Robert Y. Shapiro argue:
Politicians respond to public opinion, then, but in two quite different ways. In one, politicians assemble information on public opinion to design government policy. This is usually equated with “pandering,” and this is most evident during the relatively short period when presidential elections are imminent. The use of public opinion research here, however, raises a troubling question: why has the derogatory term “pander” been pinned on politicians who respond to public opinion? The answer is revealing: the term is deliberately deployed by politicians, pundits, and other elites to belittle government responsiveness to public opinion and reflects a long-standing fear, uneasiness, and hostility among elites toward popular consent and influence over the affairs of government
.
Bingo.
It isn’t actually pandering. It’s responsiveness. I believe that there is finally a recognition that the Party has hit the wall. We have moved as far to the right as we can go and we have been as accomodating as we can be without thoroughly compromising our fundamental principles. Most of us are not “far left” if that means extreme policy positions. Indeed, many of us would have been seen as middle of the road not all that long ago. We are partisans and that’s a different thing all together. The leadership is recognising this.
I know it hurts to lose this one. I won’t say that I’m not disappointed. But it was a very long shot from the outset and we managed to make some noise and get ourselves heard. The idea that it is somehow a sign of weakness because we only got 25 members of the Senate, including the entire leadership, to vote to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee is funny to me. Two years ago I would have thought somebody was on crack if they even suggested it was possible.
Firedoglake has a very nice post up about John Kerry and the others who voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee tonight and I urge you to read it. I agree with every word. This is a dramatic moment for the netroots. Get ready for marginalization, evocations of 1968 and 1972, calls for purging us from the party, the whole thing. That’s what happens when the citizens rise up. Don’t let it shake your will. We are the heart of the Democratic party and we can make a difference.
If you don’t believe me, here’s a great Democrat who might just convince you, Robert F. Kennedy:
“Some believe there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world’s ills. Yet many of the world’s great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and the thirty-two-year-old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal.
“These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
“Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.
“For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves, on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that effort.
“The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society.
“Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live.”
You rise to the occasion every time it’s necessary. It is the only way we can live.
Questions, anyone? I have one: How on earth is that possible? (And no, the ranking doesn’t seem to be entirely explained by the amount of debating tournaments they enter.)
I’d like to riff a moment on Digby’s post, that radical Islamism does not pose an existential threat to the US.
Digby is absolutely right that radical Islamism has been so overly hyped and pornographied, and the “war on terror” so fictionalized, that we are more like a country watching a horror film than a country at war. It is absolutely the case that bin Laden’s gang can’t possibly bring down the US government.* And while it is distressingly easier than it ought to be for bin Ladenists to acquire nuclear technology, it is highly unlikely in the next few years that a nuclear attack – or even a biochem attack – will succeed. When you think about how hard it is to acquire, store, weaponize, manufacture, ship, deploy, and initiate an attack, it becomes very clear that this is beyond the technological capabilities, as we know them, of al Qaeda, even assuming that some members hold degrees in engineering. It is no accident that al Qaeda’s spectacular attacks involved box cutters and simple bombs.
But there’s an important caveat which I’m sure both Digby, Glenn Greenwald, and others are aware of, even if they disagree with my argumentation here. Radical Islamism is not an existential threat today. But given that the Bush administration has turned Iraq into a terrorist petri dish and that Afghanistan is little better – and that’s just for starters – it is very likely that the growing isolation and consequent increasingly virulent opposition to the US will create a self-fulfilling prophecy. More secularized opponents of the US will have more and more reasons – the death of their children, for example, by US bombs – to become radicalized. And if the US traumatizes enough people, and makes it clear, as Bush stupidly does, that it is the US who is doing the traumatizing, you will eventually have a population of very angy young people which includes the technologically sophisticated, people who hate our guts and also have the wherewithal to inflict considerable damage to US populations through guerilla operations of many different sorts.
A cynic, or a paranoid, might think that a terrorist breeding ground was the goal all along for Bush/ Iraq – to create a genuine existential threat for the US to fight – which would maximize profits, destroy liberalism, etc. I don’t think that’s so. It’s too simplistic a formulation to satisfy me; the world is more complicated than that. But in a certain sense it doesn’t really matter. Deliberate psychopathy or blithering stupidity or both: The reality is that Bush has opened the gates of Hell.
There is still some time, I think to close the gates and contain the horror, but what, exactly, should the US do? The first thing is to get Bush and Bushism out of power. That is a necessary precondition to avert disaster. Since Bush will not be impeached, rational observers must operate under the assumption that the world situation by 2009 will almost certainly be very dire. Let’s set aside all that can still go wrong and which Bush will certainly do wrong in the next few years. The fact remains that many of the children of Bush’s victims – and let’s not forget, Iraq has a very young population – will be in their late teens. Many will be growing up fully committed to radical anti-US movements. And some of them will be very, very smart. And there will be no way to kill ’em all, even if there were hundreds of Fallujahs, even if it were just.
So what should the US do in 2009? I don’t have a clue. But I do know what not to do: continue the suicidal policies of the Bush administration. I’m talking not only about respecting fundamental human rights. A full repudiation of Bushism – from its economic terrorism to its lust for military “solutions” – would be a minimum first step. What to do after that is anyone’s guess.
If the US wishes to avoid serious danger, it will simply have to stop aspiring to rule the world in a militarily and economically enforced Pax Americana. It will need brilliant leadership to negotiate the Post-Bush world, a world this total moron of a president made immeasurably more dangerous than the one he presumed to rule in January 2001.
I don’t fear the present – in spite of my dread. I don’t even fear al Qaeda, but I admit they worry me a great, great deal. I don’t even fear al Qaeda’s sons and daughters. What I fear more than anything is that the US will continue to place in power catastrophically awful leaders who will fulfill their own prophecies of Armageddon by acting to cause it.
*Unless, of course, the US government is even more negligent than they were prior to September 11, and that seems pretty unlikely, imo.
Molly Ivins, Bless Her, Doesn’t Understand How Republicans Think.
by tristero
Oh, I love Molly, don’t get me wrong. But this seriously misunderestimates the Republican mindset:
I am confounded by the authoritarian streak in the Republican Party backing Bush on this [extensive, illegal spying on Americans]. To me it seems so simple: Would you think this was a good idea if Hillary Clinton were president? Would you be defending the clear and unnecessary violation of the law? Do you have complete confidence that she would never misuse this ‘inherent power’ for any partisan reason?
Molly, you’re assuming that sooner or later there actually will be a Democratic president. Republicans assume that will never, ever happen again. And they’re doing everything possible – controlling voting machines, gerrymandering, fraud, blackmail, buying the media – to make sure it doesn’t.
So why bother worrying the “other party” will abuse the power Bush now has? It’s like worrying about a large asteroid colliding with Earth. Sure, it’s theoretically possible, but…
Wouldn’t it be nice if they were wrong? And Republicans no longer were in a position to wreak the havoc they’ve inflicted on our country over the past 5 plus years? And the laws were again obeyed?
Me, I’d be perfectly happy if none of the scoundrels currently destroying our country’s way of life and government were never prosecuted if we could just keep them out of power. Well, not happy exactly, but I’d settle for it.
The tiresome pas de deux between rigid civil libertarians in denial of reality and an overaggressive executive branch seemingly heedless of the law…
Get it? You think it’s a parallel construction, both sides are wrong. But look closer. Rigid civil libertarians deny reality – there’s no question about it. The Bush administration seemingly ignores the law in its “overaggressiveness.”
Cute.
At the end Bobbitt has two sentences more about “the executive branch’s repeated appearance of an indifference to law” before finishing up with another swipe at reality-denying wimpiness. Oh, and didja notice? Somehow, the executive branch that possibly, maybe be giving the appearance of breaking the law remains nameless. Who could they be, I wonder.
But let’s not be naive, folks. We’re living in an America in which you cannot criticize Bush if you want to have any influence. Once we understand that, it’s obvious that this little essay (and I haven’t begun to discuss its substantial problems of logic and fact) wasn’t meant to be read by John and Jane Q. Public but by King George and/or his codpiece full of courtiers. Given this is his target audience, what Bobbitt’s saying becomes equally obvious:
He wants the Bush administration to do better at denying the reality that it is breaking the law. That way, Bush can better accuse civil libertarians and other liberal commie radical Muslims of denying reality in a post-9/11 world.
From the interesting tid-bit files, from Robert Parry:
Nevertheless, the Republicans may have added a complication to their expected Alito victory parade by ridiculing Kerry for making his filibuster announcement while at an economic summit in Davos, Switzerland.
As Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s right-wing Washington Times gleefully reported, Republicans quickly dubbed Kerry the “Swiss Miss.” [Washington Times, Jan. 28, 2006]
Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan joined in mocking the Massachusetts Democrat by joking at the daily White House press briefing that it was a “pretty historic” day.
“This was the first time ever that a senator has called for a filibuster from the slopes of Davos, Switzerland,” McClellan said. “I think even for a senator, it takes some pretty serious yodeling to call for a filibuster from a five-star ski resort in the Swiss Alps.”
These insults added a personal element to the decision facing Democratic senators. With Republicans hooting down the Democrats’ last presidential nominee, as well as a longtime Senate colleague, crossing the aisle to support Bush’s Supreme Court nominee suddenly had the bitter taste of an act of political treason.
They have been strutting like high stepping chorus boys all week-end, shrieking with hysterical laughter and high-fiving like mad. If I could do nothing else, I’d force these bastards to wait until Wednesday for a vote, regardless of the outcome. Deny the arrogant fucks a quorum and watch them have a full-on hissy fit on the day of the speech. Maybe they can even get Mrs Alito to pump out another fake tear or two.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel, who I love, is taking the liberal blogosphere to task for its outraged fury over picking Tim Kaine for the Democratic rebuttal at the SOTU. (Was there a fury and nobody invited me? I’m hurt.) I know I said “feel the magic” when it was announced, but I wouldn’t call that a fury. A little snarky, maybe. But you know, I can only get really furious 27.3 times a week or I get low blood sugar and Kaine just didn’t make the cut for me.
Apparently Ezra was a little bit more than snarky and Katrina got snarky right back:
Liberal writer Ezra Klein (no Brad Pitt, last time I checked him out) vented that Kaine is “a squat, squinty, pug-nosed fellow.”
Now I told you that I love Katrina and I do. But she has gone too far here. I know Ezra Klein and you can say what you will about his writing, his politics or even his little American Prospect friends — but don’t say he is no Brad Pitt. This is crazy talk. He’s almost as pretty as Katrina herself.
Ezra:
Katrina:
Tim Kaine:
Update: I see that Jane, Mrs TBOGG and David E have weighed in on this important matter as well, thank heavens. Case closed.
Glenn Greenwald points to this op-ed in today’s NY Times which points out something that many of us have been hammering for years, namely that Islamic fundamentatlist terrorism is not an existential threat. (That’s not to say that violent fundamentalism isn’t threatening, but the problem cannot be solved with warfare — sadly, it’s much more complicated than that.)
The oceans never protected us. I guess our president with his degree in history from Yale, doesn’t know that the British live across the oceans and sailed over to burn down the White House in 1812. Or that we have lived under the nuclear unbrella for more than 50 years. All those drills when I was a kid were for the exercise.
And this is not a “different kinda war” or “World War IV” or any other type of war. And allowing it to be called a “war” is a grave mistake that we probably can’t go back and undo. And unfortunately, we now know that mere unleashing of the word “war” can kick in a whole bunch of executive powers that nobody ever knew existed.
I have thought about what it is that 9/11 really evokes in people. It is assumed that it is fear, and I think that most people probably interpret it that way. Glenn attributes it, in part, to the success of bin Laden’s terrorist tactics:
The cause of this irrationality, this inability to view the terrorism threat with any perspective, is not a mystery. Terrorists like Al Qaeda deliberately stage attacks which are designed to instill fear in the population far beyond what is warranted by the actual threat-level posed by the terrorists. That’s the defining tactic and objective of terrorists. Fortunately for the terrorists, in the United States, Al Qaeda has a powerful ally in this goal: the Bush Administration, which for four years has, along with Al Qeada, worked ceaselessly to instill in Americans an overarching and excessive fear of terrorism.
That may be true, but I don’t see a society that is truly fearful. I’ve been to countries that were at war. And life always goes on to some extent. But this country does not feature the psychological traits of a country that is really at war or one that really fears terrorism in any palpable way. It features the psychological traits of a country watching a horror movie, which is not the same thing at all. You certainly see this in the fevered one-handed war blogging and the endless evocations of pre-9/11 and post 9/11 thinking reminds me of nothing so much as people who are hooked on a stimulating drug.
Of course we all felt real fear in the early days, none so much as those who lived in New York and DC. It was almost unbelievable to see those scenes. But there was a sense of spectacle and drama about it that was literally unreal to those of us who watched it on television. This was fear put to music, with dramatic title treatments and a soaring voice-over. Because of that, on some level, 9/11 was a thrill for many people, even some Democrats. It was sad and horrifying, of course, but it was also stimulating, exciting and memorable because of the way it was presented on television. (When we were talking about this, Jane described it as if “the whole country was watching porn together every time the rerun of the towers falling was broadcast.”) And we subsequently fetishized the “war on terrorism” to the point where some people become inexplicably excited whenever it is mentioned. They want that big group grope again, that sense of shared sensation. That is the “fear” that people say they have. And it’s why they want to vote for the guy who keeps pumping it into the body politic.
It’s why the “war on terrorism” still has some potency for the Republicans that the very ugly, very real war in Iraq does not. We can’t lose the “war on terrorism” because it isn’t a real war. Unfortunately, because we have allowed those words to be used, we have opened the door for authoritarian Republicans to assume the powers of a dictator under its auspices.
Greenwald and Ellis both argue very persuasively that islamic fundamentalist terrorism does not present an existential threat to our country. I think that idea is beginning to get some traction in the national security debates. I don’t know how long it might take to break this country out of its shared fetish for the “war on terrorism” but perhaps it’s time to start addressing that as well. Until we finally admit that we aren’t “at war” by any real definition of that term, we are going to be hamstrung in addressing the very real national security challenges we do face.
I haven’t the vaguest idea how to do it, though. This nation is on the “war on terrorism” thrill ride and is enjoying it so much they’ve bought a season pass. And like most thrill rides these days, after the first little while I start to feel nauseated.
The Republicans’ numbers are in the dirt but they are going to win decisively on the optimistic issues of endless war and endless debt. The Democrats’ numbers are substantially better but they will never win anything because they are icky.
The NSA illegal spying scandal is good for Republicans because there is no evidence that the president has ever used it for political purposes.
No word on the federal case against two close presidential advisors who are accused of exposing a clandestine CIA agent for political purposes.
