Letters to the Editor
-
More all natural fertilizer from Elephantman.
V-E-T-O Not to mention, rejection by the Senate.
Then the question can be asked "Why does President Bush and the (presumably) majority of the Senate hate America?"
Search your own soul (if you still have one) for the answer. I'll wage you don't have the piles to even consider it.
-
Veto, Elephantman? To quote your Leader, "Bring it on."
Sure thing. President Under-30-Per-Cent vetoes...and then what? Bush will wave his little arms, shout "Terror! Terror!" and Lo, the Sky Will Not Fall. Seems the House Dems have finally discovered there's electoral gold to be mined by defying Bush on matters of deep principle. Now, if only the Senate could learn the same thing.
Are we finally starting to leave the post-9/11 world behind, where it belongs? Could we possibly get back to post-1776 America? OK, maybe that's still a long, hard slog ahead--as others have pointed out, there's been bipartisan support for the National Security State for a long time--still, I can see the goal again, for once.
-
El Tiburon on great news
But perhaps we are witnessing in the Democrats the courage and insight that we wish they would have had from day one.
If so, it's because they are finally witnessing the steady, unyielding pressure of an electorate no longer paralyzed by disinterest and delusion.
All along, we've had the Congress we fought (or failed to fight) for.
I think they've tested the waters and realize that they need to pander to us, their base, instead of the Republicans.
They're still making up their mind about listening to the netroots. Conventional wisdom is that popular movements, and the funding and attention they provide, disappear just as quickly as they arise — and not without precedent.
As far as many of our elected leaders are concerned, the burden of proof to the contrary is still on the new guys.
-
@Elephantman
If Bush vetoes the bill, that means he was lying about the importance of the program, because his veto will stop the program.
The program is not for terrorists, and everybody knows it. Bush would not threaten a veto if that were not the case.
-
Amity @ the no-secrets secret session
Have you seen this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031304435.html
Complicating the Republicans' secret plans, and the Democrats' capitulation, were a dozen liberal members who raised a series of procedural objections.
"There are some of us here who feel that this country has drifted toward a version of a national security state," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).
Blunt pursed his lips and stroked his chin.
"Since 1825, three times in the history of this country and at no time since 1983 have we done what you are proposing," pointed out Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.). It's true: Last night's session was the fifth since 1812, in fact.
Lundgren, hobbling into the chamber with a crutch because of an injured foot, sought permission to speak. "I was here for the last three secret sessions we had," he boasted.
"I was here for the secret sessions," countered Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.). "And given the mumbo jumbo that I heard," he added, the main purpose was "to demonstrate the total uselessness of secret sessions."
Laughter filled the chamber.
But the left-wingers were unwilling to take the secrecy lightly. "It's a very, very serious matter when we do the public's business in secret," Doggett said. In the front row, Reps. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio) and Diane Watson (Calif.) applauded.
Had to bold my man Doggett. Very pleased by his words.
-
At long last!
For the first since December 12, 2000, I'm breathing just a bit easier. The Dems in the House have delivered up a piece of legislation that provides effective tools for the surveillance of those we need to track without impinging on the rights granted by the 4th Amendment.
If Bush vetoes or if the Senate rejects, then hopefully, the House will remain firm in denying telecom immunity, and the second best scenario, the pre-PAA FISA laws will continue. Either situation will allow judicial investigation of the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping activities, something that must remain an option if the Rule of Law - what distinguishes our form of government from repressive forms - is to remain inviolable.
Thanks, GG, for your untiring efforts!
-
Little Brother
Yes, this news is indeed encouraging, although IMO not quite rising to the level of "promising". ;)
Wow. The House Democrats earned an "encouraging" from Little Brother. Never thought I would see that. They penetrated even the most fortified layer of cynicism. What's next? Adnoto is going to come along to ask for phone numbers so he can call Senators and ask that they vote the right way?
-
I wonder..
Will there be a major "terrorist attack" before this bill lands on Bush's desk?
There is a great deal at stake here for the neocons..
And we already know they play for keeps.
-
Thank you Glenn...
You have consistently spoken with strength and righteousness about the corruption of the US constitution implicit in both the NSA spying and retroactive immunity for the telecoms. Let's at least hope that if the Senate doesn't drop the immunity provision the House will represent an insurmountable impasse. FISA, status quo ante, is sufficient, even if Bush's parting shot is a blanket pardon. The next administration, unless McCain, can lift the cover and then stamp out the cockroaches fleeing for the darkness.
-
Operation Northwoods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan by the U.S. Department of Defense to stage acts of simulated or real terrorism on US soil and against U.S. interests and then put the blame of these acts on Cuba in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro.
As part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative, the plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state-sponsored acts of terrorism on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.
-more
-
The best part of this
is exactly what the Elephant's comment and the responses to it illustrated. The House has passed a bill which addresses all the shortcomings in the FISA law. They have done what's necessary to protect our security. Anyone who obstructs this law is now working AGAINST our security in the favor of a special interest.
The "Trial Lawyers" bogeyman has officially been turned into a "telecom Executives" bogeyman because the act of obstruction has now shifted back to the White House.