- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
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.
