Letters to the Editor

• Standard Operating Procedure: Reid and Pelosi Just Work There

  [Read the article: Targeting Steny Hoyer for his contempt for the rule of law]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  As with Iraq (Pelosi last Thursday):

  Reporter: "So you're [negotiating] a final package this time - you're not gonna bounce it back and forth...?"

  .

  Nancy Pelosi: "Well, I can't answer for the behavior of the Republicans in the United States Senate. That I cannot answer for. What I can answer for is that Democrats understand our responsibility, that we want a bill [to fund the occupation of Iraq] that can be signed by the president. That's why we are putting together lean legislation that is not overloaded and attract a veto by the president. I would hope that the Republicans in the Senate would respect that, those priorities as well. I will vote against the funding of the war without any timelines for redeployment of our troops. Others will vote for it and that will go to the president.

  http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=6_15&products_id=205943-1&highlight=

  So with FISA:

  Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they would not stand in the way of a compromise overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), despite their concerns with the impacts of the sprawling measure.

  In short, Hoyer and Pelosi and Reid (or Rockefeller, his proxy) will arrange a deal, negotiate its passage through Congress, assure it meets with the president's approval to avoid a veto, and then try to take credit for (publicly) voting against the sure thing they set up, while simultaneously trying to blame its passage on those for whom they arranged its passage. And Pat Leahy and John Conyers will both stand by and watch, silently obeying the orders of their political party's leadership instead of honoring their sworn duty to support the Constitution, while carefully avoiding posing any obstruction to passage of the FISA travesty they both claim to "oppose."

  Deceit as SOP is putting it too mildly.

  Note that the first question at last Thursday's Speaker press conference (see above URL link) was about Iraq, and it was Pelosi's answer to that question that a second reporter (as transcribed above and in an earlier comment of mine) was following up on, at the close of the short press conference, and that Carl Hulse was quoting yesterday in his short NYT article. The context of his article creates confusion, however, and the impression given was that Pelosi was talking about FISA being finished by July 4th (as Jim White has noted here). In fact, no reporter asked Pelosi about FISA last Thursday, nor did Blunt ask Hoyer about FISA during their weekly preview of the House schedule the same day, on the House floor. Pelosi's quoted answer was given to a question about Iraq, alone, though clearly FISA's momentum is basically on a similar track.

  The Senate is now adjourned for the night, after basically marking time all day, with plans for more tomorrow. In my previous comment here, I noted the delay that procedural objections by Dodd (or any other Senator) could quite easily create to forestall the passage of FISA and/or the blank-check Iraq occupation funding (which funds six months beyond our "legal" mandate in Iraq), even if 60 Senators are willing to support passage.

  I assumed in that comment that the process would start this Monday. But now the earliest start would appear to be Thursday. If so, the delay (if I properly calculated, and if fully engaged in by at least one principled Senator) can now be extended until Friday evening, 6/27, at least, without the need for a formal filibuster or complete obstruction of Senate business. The Senate and House are due to start the July 4th break by June 28th.

  So, again, depending on whether more deceitful shortcuts of process or debate are planned by the leadership, if I've calculated accurately, it is very likely within the power of Russ Feingold and/or Chris Dodd and/or Barack Obama (or a proxy), etc., to prevent passage of a FISA "compromise" before the Senate next leaves town for a week.

  P.S. I would say this, in response to any (good faith) concerns in Congress about avoiding another terrorist attack by way of FISA amendment: do further due diligence regarding the intelligence operations at issue. Stop taking on faith what is being summarized to you by political actors pushing an agenda. Talk to John Tierney and Rush Holt, or, better yet, travel with them to the NSA and speak to the programmers, and unearth the details of what the "foreign-to-unknown" technology problem is, before assuming this is any sort of serious "intelligence gap" worthy of the name. And then separate that actual problem, which post-dated FISA's origins and subsequent amendments, from the unjustified changes to FISA being pushed by the White House, including especially immunity. If you aren't capable of sufficiently overseeing the (classified) facts, then settle, at the most, for short-term rolling extensions of the PAA authorization orders for (apparently) bulk email collection from U.S. servers. But please stop lying to the American people for your own (unConstitutional) convenience.

  Permalink Tuesday, June 17, 2008 04:15 PM