George W. Bush Lies (Again)

Photo from source, TPM Muckraker

Does this crap work on anybody anymore? The Bush administration used to at least cloak themselves in layered language when lying. They wouldn't actually say that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. They'd just suggest it, urgently and repeatedly. These days, the administration, or George W. Bush himself, just lie outright.

Before you jump on my case, and accuse me of "Bush Derrangement Syndrome," this one is incontrivertible. The Congress let the "Protect America Act" lapse this weekend. Bush said it was of utmost importance, and that possible attacks would ensue if it lapsed. He also said he'd veto this self-same extremely important act if it did not include retroactive immunity for telecom companies who surveilled Americans without warrants.

So, it would not have mattered if the House had passed the thing. He would have vetoed it, because they did not provide for this immunity. But he continues to lie, by repeating that we are somehow now defenseless without the act. Bull. He could (gasp!) get a warrant. Not only that, the provisions of the act are still in effect for a year. Won't someone in the mainstream media (besides Keith Olbermann) finally start calling this man what he is? He's a liar. Plain and simple.

[Excerpt]

Bush Beats Drum... Again

For the third morning in a row now, President Bush got in front of the cameras and accused Democrats of exposing the nation to attacks by refusing to pass the Senate's version of the intelligence bill.

From the Decider Himself:

"People say, oh, it doesn't matter if this law hasn't been renewed -- it does matter. It matters for a variety of reasons. It matters because the intelligence officials won't have tools necessary to get as much information as we possibly can to protect you. And it matters because these telephone companies that work collaboratively with us to protect the American people are afraid they're going to get sued."

Poor babies.

Read more at: TPM Muckraker

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment, Telecom Immunity

Outstanding as always. If you don't understand the reason why I'm harping on this telecom immunity thing, check out the video.

Political Theater: Contempt Citations & Walkouts

Photo from TPM Muckraker

What a weird day in politics. For a change, however, it's mostly good news for Democrats. The House of Representatives finally did what we're asking them to: respect the Constitution and the rule of law, and go after those who don't.

They thwarted the President's dire threats, and did not knuckle under on the "Dissect Protect America Act," did not extend it, and did not add immunity to it. Then, as they prepared to finally hold Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten in contempt of Congress for their refusal to respond to Congressional subpoenas, something truly odd happened.

Minority Leader John Boehner lead a "spontaneous" walk-out of the Republicans. Spontaneous is in quotes, because they exited to an area in front of the Capitol, already set up with a podium, microphones and reporters. Boehner gave a speech full of hoo-hah over security and terrorists, but clearly, he was really there to get the Republicans out of the chamber before the contempt vote. Which passed. Handily.

Of course, this could all come to naught. There may be some sort of back-room deal that lead to all of this theater. Or, the Democrats could act like that guy who boldly charges in front of you in traffic, only to lose all his nerve, and drive ten miles under the speed limit. They could cave later. My hope is that they feel a little puffed up, and continue in the vein they're in.

[Excerpt]

House Approves Contempt Citations for Miers, Bolten

The House voted Thursday to issue contempt citations for two presidential confidants on an almost completely party-line vote pushed by Democrats.

The White House said the Justice Department would not ask the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to pursue the House contempt charges. However, the measure would allow the House to bring its own lawsuit on the matter. [snip]

The House supported the citations 223-32, with nearly all Democrats voting in favor of the resolution, and nearly all Republicans voting against. The vote count was suppressed after Republicans walked off the House floor in protest. . .

Read more (because I'm fair and balanced) at: FOX "News"

Get Active: Tell the House NO on Immunity

It's all well and good for us to be outraged about the Senate's capitulation on the FISA bill, allowing for retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. But don't you wish you could do something about it? Guess what, you can. Join me, and add your name to this petition to the House of Representatives. It takes two minutes, and you'll feel a little bit better.

[Email from Credo Action]

"The Single Largest Invasion of Privacy in American History."

Yesterday the Senate rejected the amendment offered by Senators Dodd and Feingold to strip retroactive immunity from the Intelligence Committee's wiretapping reform bill. It went on to pass the Intelligence Committee's bill by a wide margin.

As a progressive organization that lives inside of a very good mobile phone company this fight was personal. We know that a telecom company should never, ever help the White House wiretap Americans without a warrant. And AT&T and Verizon should know that, too.

Together we've fought long and hard against retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that helped Bush spy illegally on Americans. Hundreds of thousands of citizens like you stood up and told their Senators that we expect them to defend the rule of law. Sadly, it seemed that the deck was always stacked against us in the Senate.

But the fight isn't over yet.

Last fall, the House passed the RESTORE Act, a FISA reform bill that included solid oversight of domestic surveillance and did not contain retroactive immunity. [snip]

Three out of the four committees in Congress that have worked on this FISA legislation have rejected retroactive immunity. Please join in one last time and ask the House leadership to stand by their good work and report a bill that doesn't include retroactive immunity.

Click here to tell the House leadership -- stand firm, no retroactive immunity for lawbreakers.

House of Representatives Rebukes Bush on Wiretapping

This morning, President Bush levelled a threat, that not extending the "Protect America Act" might herald an attack that dwarfs 9/11. At the same time, he said he'd veto the act if it didn't include immunity for telecommunications companies for their very likely illegal acts. Cognative dissonance is a common trait in the Republican base, but it is also apparently shared by The Decider.

Thankfully, the US House of Representatives--showing much more spine than the Senate did yesterday--stood up to him. They decided not to renew the act, which expires this weekend. Expect much more bluster from The Commander Guy, who will now need to actually get warrants. Or break the law some more, which he seems pretty comfortable with.

[Excerpt]

House stands up to Bush pressure for quick wiretap bill

A move to temporarily extend a controversial spy law hit a snag Wednesday, as the House voted to debate for three more weeks while failing to concurrently pass a temporary extension of a stop-gap measure.

The president has vowed to veto any legislation updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that does not essentially retroactively legalize his warrantless surveillance program and free phone companies from facing lawsuits. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

White House Admits Telecoms Spied

Photo from source, Raw Story

I think the people at the Bush Administration are getting tired. This past week, it sorta slipped out that, yeah, we waterboarded. But only three times! And they were bad, bad guys! Honest! And now, on a day when the Senate laid down and died on the issue, we have this. . .

[Excerpt]

Oops: White House spokesman admits telecoms spied

On the eve of a vote to give telephone companies immunity for their alleged participation in the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretap program, White House spokesperson Dana Perino admitted that the companies actually spied.

Because they were patriotic. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Hope in the House for Striking of Telecom Immunity

While the Senate let us down today, by not striking the immunity provisions for telecom companies, there may be hope in the House of Representatives. I've put my hopes on John Conyers before--and he's let me down before, particularly regarding impeachment--but I'm hoping he's serious this time.

[Excerpt]

Chairman Conyers Writes to White House Counsel Fielding on Amnesty

In a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding today, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers indicated that the secret documents recently provided by the White House do not justify the Senate amnesty provision. In addition, Chairman Conyers reiterated previous requests for additional information that the White House has not yet provided and requested declassification so that more information on this crucial issue may be provided to the American public. . .



Read more, with Conyers' letter, at: The Gavel

Democrats Fail to Stop Telecom Immunity

While everyone's eyes are on the primary results, my eyes wandered over to the Senate, where the Democrats once again let us all down. They failed to remove telecom immunity from the FISA bill. They are in effect saying that if the big communications companies broke the law, they should be immune from any accountability.

Why? Why would this be the prevailing opinion in the Senate? Or in the Democratic half of the Senate? And why, why, WHY do the Democrats keep capitulating and giving the President everything he wants, even when it is clearly wrong?

I no longer buy the argument that they're just spineless, and terrified to be portrayed as "soft on terror." There simply must be more to it than that. My two pet theories: 1) The wiretapping and data mining the White House has already done has lead to a wealth of dirty secrets, and those secrets will be revealed if the Democrats don't capitulate; or 2) The Democrats are eager to have all of these expansive powers when they next are in a position of power. I would happily entertain a third theory. Anyone?

One thing is certain: Republicans stick together, and Democrats do not. Every single Republican voted against the removal of immunity. Slightly less than half of the Democrats voted with the Republicans. Again, why?

[Excerpt]

Dems Fall Well Short Of Stripping Immunity From Spy Bill

An attempt to strip lawsuit immunity for telecom firms which helped the government tap phone calls fell well short in the Senate, leaving liberal Democrats on the losing side of what they believe is a fundamental civil liberties debate.

Only 31 senators _ all Democrats _ voted to take away retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies facing lawsuits over wiretaps carried out under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Sixty-seven senators _ a mix of Republicans and Democrats _ voted against the amendment. . .

Read more at: CBS News

Who's Minding the Store? Bush & Civil Liberties

Photo from source, Think Progress

So, George W. Bush says that his "expanded powers" to spy on anybody he wants to are urgent, and that the FISA bill is crucial to American security. Then he says he'll veto this essential safety measure if it doesn't include retroactive immunity for telecom companies. Companies he said did nothing wrong, but need the immunity anyway.

Now, the icing for this crappy cake. The people responsible for overseeing all of this, to make sure our civil liberties are protected? Well, there are no people! Surprise!

[Excerpt]

White House Civil Liberties Oversight Board Vacant As Bush Pushes For More Surveillance Powers

In 2004, the 9/11 Commission recommended the establishment of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board “to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are appropriately considered” by the President “in the implementation of all laws, regulations, and executive branch policies” related to national security. [snip]

Now, the board is officially vacant. The terms of the original members expired on Jan. 30, 2007, but “no nominations have been sent to the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which must approve appointees for the five vacancies" . . .

Read more at: ThinkProgress

Russ Feingold on FISA in 30 Seconds

Yep, another video. Hey, it's just what I'm finding that's interesting tonight! Anyway, this one is from one of my favorite Senators, Russ Feingold. And he explains one of the biggest problems with proposed FISA rules in a 30 second clip. Pretty good, Russ! Watch.



Found at Crooks and Liars

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Telecom Immunity

Wow. Just wow. Speechless.



Oh, by the way, thank you MSNBC for providing embeddable video! Bravo!

Cloture Not Reached on Telecom Immunity (FISA)

You have the left saying that the Bush Administration has run roughshod over the Constitution, and has been listening into regular Americans' phone calls, reading their emails and more. The left also says that Bush wants to give the Telecom companies that aided him "retroactive immunity" from any possible future prosecution or lawsuits. That sounds bad.

The right is trying to say that nothing improper occurred, that the Telecoms were doing their patriotic duty--which in this case is anything Bush asked them to do--but for some reason they need retroactive immunity anyhow.

Now, I know a little about this, and so the left side of the argument is far more convincing. But just take off your partisan hat for a moment, and try to parse what the right is saying here. The Telecoms did nothing wrong, and neither did the Bush Administration. But the Telecoms need retroactive immunity for their actions. Does that fly, logically? In my mind, it doesn't make a bit of sense.

So to the continuing debate (rather than cloture), I say hallelujah. For once, the Democrats didn't cave. I'm amazed, but I guess it ain't over yet.

[Excerpt]

Senate votes to keep debate open over foreign surveillance bill

Senate Democrats on Monday defeated a GOP motion to end debate on a bill overhauling U.S. foreign-intelligence surveillance law, setting up a showdown with the White House over whether to protect the phone companies that participated in the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program. . .

Read more at: The Hill

Mark Levin Supports John Gibson's Ledger Comments

Photo from WBAP

Yesterday, many people were disgusted and appalled by the behavior of FOX "News" and Radio's John Gibson, for his comments and "jokes" two hours after the announcement of actor Heath Ledger's death. He's been rightly taken to task all over the blogosphere--on the left hemisphere, that is.

I'm steadfastly opposed to providing links to the right-wing commentary on the story, as they are unworthy of the revenue a click might generate. It will suffice to say that the same juvenile, sub-Jr. High level behavior that is on display whenever they discuss gay issues (any gay issue) has been on display now. Why? Because Heath Ledger once played a gay character in a movie.

I digress. Anyway, today I was running errands for work, and caught a bit of right-wing talker Mark Levin's show. He's part of the second-string of conservative talkers, but gets decent ratings, I guess. How, I have no idea. His voice is incredibly irritating, especially when he gets worked up. His voice is mosquito-like, similar to the warm-up eeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhh sounds that Jay Leno makes as he segues between jokes. Only Levin sounds like that all the time.

I know that sounds mean, but really--he's on radio, and he has an extremely annoying voice. It's similar to (and simultaneously completely different from) listening to former MSNBC host, Rita Cosby. It would be unpleasant if I agreed with him.

In the short time I listened, he featured author Jonah Goldberg, who was trying to say that all of the negative stereotypes held of conservatives are actually liberal traits. Riiiight. I also heard him interview Orrin Hatch, who was saying that telecom immunity is necessary because these companies were only doing their patriotic duty by doing what ever their government asked of them. Chilling.

And finally, Levin defended John Gibson's deplorable behavior regarding Heath Ledger's death. He said that Gibson was under fire from liberals. That he was a victim of "cheap shots." That he was a good guy, and then he supportively said, "Hang in there, Johnny." And he never mentioned what John Gibson had said that got him into trouble in the first place.

Sean Hannity calls this guy, "the great one." OK, I guess that tells you all you need to know!