David at Left of Ohio got the following response from Charlie Wilson regarding his vote on the FISA bill:
“The bill I supported was passed on Friday night. Unfortunately that was not the bill that the Senate passed. The version left on the table was unsatisfactory, but it was better than leaving the American people unprotected for the next few months. The legislation that ultimately passed both the Senate and the House, the version that I voted for, is a temporary solution and I’m confident we’ll revisit this issue when Congress returns in September. Again, this was not my choice of bills but to leave America unprotected was not an option."
Below, Glenn Greenwald on this, and Linda Sexauer's brilliant letter to Diane Feinstein.
OK, this is bullshit. I'll let Greenwald explain why:
...here they are (the Democrats), after refusing to legalize warrantless eavesdropping prior to their midterm victory, allowing this legislation to pass now that they are in the majority. It is as politically self-destructive as it is unconscionable on the merits.
While the premise of this behavior is that Democrats must avoid appearing "soft" and "weak," one article after the next describes their behavior as "surrendering," "capitulating," "bowing to pressure," "caving in" and "suffering defeat" -- all at the hands of a weakened, isolated and pervasively despised lame duck President whose political party is in shambles. The worst thing one can be in American politics and American culture generally is a loser, and Democrats perpetually turn themselves into losers and convince themselves when doing so that they are appearing "strong" and "tough."
What makes this all the more appalling is that it was so easily avoidable. All Democrats had to do was offer legislation to fix the only real gap in FISA and then demand that the President sign it or risk a Terrorist attack. They could have gone on the offensive ahead of time by crafting the legislation and then made it their own cause to demand that the President sign it immediately in order to fix this problem and protect us from the Terrorists.
But they did none of that. They waited around, as always, with no aim and no strategy and no principle and no belief and allowed the President to dictate their behavior and control the debate. It is exactly what they have done on every virtually major issue over the last six years -- from Iraq to the Military Commissions Act to the Alito nomination to the whole slew of still-secret surveillance programs that they meekly allow to remain undisclosed, even to them.
In the process, they gutted the few existing restrictions on the government's power to spy on us. They revitalized the GOP base which is revelling in their Victory and dispirited and infuriated their own base. They revealed themselves, yet again, as weak and principle-free as they are politically inept. And even Fred Hiatt sees all of that.
Go read the whole thing, and while you're at it scroll down and read his fascinating interview with Chris Dodd.
Now, read Linda Sexauer's brilliant piece at Pierre's place on Diane Feinstein's vote. Here's an excerpt:
Why did you do this? The only explanation I can come up with is that you mistakenly assume that contradicting this president on any matter having to do with national security will hurt the Democratic party’s chances in upcoming elections. Well, you’re wrong about that. By now, you must realize that the political tactic of terrorism fear-mongering employed by the Republican party now for seven long years is no longer effective.
For the record, Bush’s performance since taking office has earned him the lowest job approval rating of any president in our history. That seems to be his greatest presidential achievement, what we will one day refer to as his legacy. His policies and his performance are so overwhelmingly disapproved of by Americans all across the country, the numbers barely register. And here in your district, as you might guess, his approval is even lower than his dismally low national approval rating.
President Bush likes to say that his popularity should have no bearing on our national security. No one will argue with that! However, we’re not talking about his popularity here. We’re talking about the American
people’s judgment and confidence in his ability and competence to perform his duties as our President, including his responsibilities to protect U.S. national security, within the framework of the laws, as set
forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nobody I know is surprised at his admission that he can’t do his job, as set forth and constrained by our laws. Where some of us part company is at the junction at which he says
he must break our laws or change our laws in order to protect us. It is my opinion that you just enabled him to continue doing a bad job, but with a greater level of executive power.
Remember to call or write your congressman or Senator and tell them what you think.
Read More...
Summary only...
