Wiretapping Law Casts Pall On Democrats

[GaryC 7]

Wiretapping Law Casts Pall On Democrats

With Congress out of town, media outlets continue to analyze the performance of the Democratic majority. Some media sources suggest last weekend's passage of a wiretapping bill, opposed by the party's liberal base, may prove politically troublesome for Democrats. The New York Times said the congressional vote "that authorized eavesdropping without warrants on international communications, including those involving Americans within the United States, has shown that there is at least one arena in which Mr. Bush can still hold the line: terrorism." The victory "points up an enduring challenge for Democrats, even as they have gained other advantages over Mr. Bush and his fellow Republicans."

ABC World News said the wiretapping measure "passed in part of because major turnaround by Democrats in Congress. Two years ago, when a similar wiretapping program was first reported, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said, quote, 'calls into question the integrity and credibility of our nation's commitment to the rule of law.' Now, Sen. Feinstein and 15 other Senate Democrats have voted to give the government even more power to wiretap."

The New York Times editorializes, "It was appalling to watch over the last few days as Congress -- now led by Democrats -- caved in to yet another unnecessary and dangerous expansion of...Bush's powers, this time to spy on Americans in violation of basic constitutional rights." The "spectacle left us wondering what the Democrats -- especially their feckless Senate leaders -- plan to do with their majority in Congress if they are too scared of Republican campaign ads to use it to protect the Constitution and restrain an out-of-control president." Similarly, under the headline "The Politics Of Fear," the Los Angeles Times says in an editorial, "That this flawed legislation was approved by a Democratic Congress is a reminder that many in the party are still fearful that they will be labeled 'soft on terror' if they don't give this administration what it wants when it wants it."

On Fox News' Special Report roundtable, Morton Kondracke said, "I would say that the Congress gets an F for style, and maybe a C-minus for substance. The F for style is that they are always fighting. They are always yelling and screaming, and it came to a crescendo as they were leaving town with the House completely out of order. And when they are not doing that, they are beating up on Alberto Gonzales, or they are beating up on the president. They are constantly fighting, and it looks terrible." Also on the roundtable, Bill Sammon of the Washington Examiner said, "They are getting some things done. But another way to look at this substantively is that they promised to end war in Iraq, and they failed to do that." On the same show, columnist Charles Krauthammer said the six month sunset provision on the FISA bill "means it will become an issue early next year, and the Republicans will win again. That is a slam dunk issue for the President."

The Politico, under the headline "New Congress, Same Culture," says "Democrats swept into power last fall promising to change the tone on Capitol Hill. But after a meltdown of civility on the eve of the August recess, many voters might be scratching their heads."

The Baltimore Sun, meanwhile, reported Democrats' "ambitions have been checked this year by a Republican minority that has held together on controversial issues." And "on the most important issue facing the nation -- the war in Iraq -- despite seven months and countless hours of debate, Democrats have yet to make significant progress on reversing President Bush's policy."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bull...etin_070807.htm

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's always good to look at the editorial piece from the NYT that's being commented on.

Entire editorial piece from NYT:

The Fear of Fear Itself

It was appalling to watch over the last few days as Congress — now led by Democrats — caved in to yet another unnecessary and dangerous expansion of President Bush’s powers, this time to spy on Americans in violation of basic constitutional rights. Many of the 16 Democrats in the Senate and 41 in the House who voted for the bill said that they had acted in the name of national security, but the only security at play was their job security.

There was plenty of bad behavior. Republicans marched in mindless lockstep with the president. There was double-dealing by the White House. The director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, crossed the line from being a steward of this nation’s security to acting as a White House political operative.

But mostly, the spectacle left us wondering what the Democrats — especially their feckless Senate leaders — plan to do with their majority in Congress if they are too scared of Republican campaign ads to use it to protect the Constitution and restrain an out-of-control president.

The votes in the House and Senate were supposed to fix a genuine glitch in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to obtain a warrant before eavesdropping on electronic communications that involve someone in the United States. The court charged with enforcing that law said the government must also seek a warrant if the people are outside the country, but their communications are routed through data exchanges here — a technological problem that did not exist in 1978.

Instead of just fixing that glitch, the White House and its allies on Capitol Hill railroaded Congress into voting a vast expansion of the president’s powers. They gave the director of national intelligence and the attorney general authority to intercept — without warrant, court supervision or accountability — any telephone call or e-mail message that moves in, out of or through the United States as long as there is a “reasonable belief” that one party is not in the United States. The new law all but eviscerates the 1978 law. The only small saving grace is that the new statute expires in six months.

The House handled this mess somewhat better than the Senate, moving to the floor a far more sensible bill. Mr. McConnell certified that the House bill would address the problem raised by the court. That is, until the White House made clear that it wanted to use the court’s ruling to grab a lot more power.

In the Senate, the team of Harry Reid, the majority leader, gave up fast, agreeing to a deal that doomed any good bill. The senators then hurriedly approved the White House bill, dumped it on the House and skulked off on vacation. Representative Rahm Emanuel, the fourth-ranking member of the Democratic House leadership, said yesterday that his party would not wait for the new eavesdropping authority to expire, and would have a new, measured bill on the floor by October. We look forward to reading it.

But the problem with Congress last week was that Democrats were afraid to explain to Americans why the White House bill was so bad and so unnecessary — despite what the White House was claiming. There are good answers, if Democrats are willing to address voters as adults. To start, they should explain that — even if it were a good idea, and it’s not — the government does not have the capability to sort through billions of bits of electronic communication. And the larger question: why, six years after 9/11, is this sort of fishing expedition the supposed first line of defense in the war on terrorism?

While serving little purpose, the new law has real dangers. It would allow the government to intercept, without a warrant, every communication into or out of any country, including the United States. Instead of explaining all this to American voters — the minimal benefits and the enormous risks — the Democrats have allowed Mr. Bush and his fear-mongering to dominate all discussions on terrorism and national security.

Mr. Bush claims that he has kept America safe since 9/11. But that claim ignores the country’s very real and present vulnerabilities. Six years after the 9/11 attacks the administration has still failed to secure American ports, railroads and airports from terrorist attack, and has put the profits of the chemical and nuclear-power industries ahead of safeguarding their plants.

Mr. Bush also worries Democratic strategists by talking about “staying on the offensive” against terrorism, but it was his decision to invade Iraq that diverted resources from the real offensive, the one against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mr. Bush’s incessant fear-mongering — and the Democrats’ refusal to challenge him — has had one notable success. The only issue on which Americans say that they trust Republicans more than Democrats is terrorism. At least those Americans are afraid of terrorists. The Democrats who voted for this bill, and others like it over the last few years, show only fear of Republicans.

The Democratic majority has made strides on other issues like children’s health insurance against White House opposition. As important as these measures are, they do not excuse the Democrats from remedying the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties and the Bill of Rights. That is their most important duty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/opinion/...agewanted=print

[GaryC 7]

Yeah, but congress did pass the warrentless wiretap law. The very same law that they have been calling for Bush's impeachment over. And don't forget that this is a dem congress. Who cares what some newspaper thinks of it. Some dems you got there. Can't keep their stories straight.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I thought you agreed with the warrantless wiretapping Gary....?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yeah, but congress did pass the warrentless wiretap law. The very same law that they have been calling for Bush's impeachment over. And don't forget that this is a dem congress. Who cares what some newspaper thinks of it. Some dems you got there. Can't keep their stories straight.

Nah, Gary...both parties do this. The Dems are afraid of doing anything to interfere with Bush's War insofar that if he fails, nobody can blame it on the Dems for not giving him what he's been asking for. There is a consensus that, okay, Bush got us into this mess and now let's see him get us out. Every politician knows the art of compromise and unfortunately in many cases, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. This bill expires in 6 months and I'm sure that was a major factor in why the Dems basically said to the President, "Fine! We're going to give you what you want, but there's a time limit."

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I thought you agreed with the warrantless wiretapping Gary....?

His point is valid, though. The Dems opposed it and now they let it pass. I'm upset about it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I can't defend it either - just seems strange that someone who supported the policy in the first place would point this out when its serving his political interests.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can't defend it either - just seems strange that someone who supported the policy in the first place would point this out when its serving his political interests.

It also serves his political interest to point out that the Democrats didn't stand up to Bush but clearly fell over on that one.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The difference between the two parties seems to diminish on a weekly basis, assuming of course that it was ever that pronounced to begin with.

The media stresses the huge partisan divide, but the reality seems to be one of general mediocrity. Hard to believe we still expect politician's behaviour to match their ample rhetoric.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Number 6

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I can't defend it either - just seems strange that someone who supported the policy in the first place would point this out when its serving his political interests.

It also serves his political interest to point out that the Democrats didn't stand up to Bush but clearly fell over on that one.

Yep. But they aren't finished. They're laying low for now and will strike when they feel the opportunity presents itself. Perhaps they're being spineless, or perhaps they're being smarter than conventional wisdom shows us.

[Heracles 417]

I thought you agreed with the warrantless wiretapping Gary....?

Actually thanks to the 'pro-american' media that avenue has been removed because the terrorists now know we are listening in.

Nevertheless, please enlighten me on how you would like us to find these terrorists.

[GaryC 7]

I thought you agreed with the warrantless wiretapping Gary....?

Oh please don't misunderstand me. I am all for the terrorist surveillance program. I just think it's worth noting that at first it was something the dems wanted to impeach Bush over and now they are voting for it. I am very happy that it passed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I thought you agreed with the warrantless wiretapping Gary....?

Actually thanks to the 'pro-american' media that avenue has been removed because the terrorists now know we are listening in.

Nevertheless, please enlighten me on how you would like us to find these terrorists.

Why does that question arise from what I said above?

Moreover, do you just like asking questions that you're not prepared to answer yourself? Not very sporting is it?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can't defend it either - just seems strange that someone who supported the policy in the first place would point this out when its serving his political interests.

It also serves his political interest to point out that the Democrats didn't stand up to Bush but clearly fell over on that one.

Yep. But they aren't finished. They're laying low for now and will strike when they feel the opportunity presents itself. Perhaps they're being spineless, or perhaps they're being smarter than conventional wisdom shows us.

I'm afraid it's the former.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I can't defend it either - just seems strange that someone who supported the policy in the first place would point this out when its serving his political interests.

It also serves his political interest to point out that the Democrats didn't stand up to Bush but clearly fell over on that one.

Yep. But they aren't finished. They're laying low for now and will strike when they feel the opportunity presents itself. Perhaps they're being spineless, or perhaps they're being smarter than conventional wisdom shows us.

I'm afraid it's the former.

It remains to be seen.