Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
I want to second the question upthread about the underlying reasons for any legislator to sign onto this, but most especially someone like Steny who like five minutes ago seemed to understand that this was repugnant to a nation of laws (which I hope someday America will be, once again).Can anyone shed any light on this? It has the feel that someone has compromising pictures or something.
Motives are always hard to know, especially with barren Beltway politicians, so I'll just pass on what seems to be the consensus among the Washington people I talk to about this:
They think that, come August, when the PAA orders expire, the GOP is going to have a club to beat them with as they go to their convention to nominate Obama ("The Democrats are leaving us vulnerable to the Terrorists"). Since Obama is against telecom amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping, they think it's necessary to take that issue off the table, hence the "compromise."
They could just extend the PAA orders by 6-9 months and let Bush veto it (or the GOP filibuster), but they have no concern about any of these issues at all and want to sell these issues away out of fear that it might entail the slightest political cost.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
