home

Sunday :: August 19, 2007

Today's FISA Amendment News

Scarecrow at Firedoglake and Marcy at The Next Hurrah are covering today's New York Times article suggesting that the FISA Amendment grants far more power than previously thought to intercept phone calls and obtain call and e-mail records of ordinary Americans not suspected of being involved in terrorism.

Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.

I'd like to focus on one other aspect: deficiencies in reporting requirements. How will the American whose conversations, business records, call records or e-mails are intercepted by virtue of the FISA Amendment find out and how will they be able to challenge it? The answer, as far as I can tell, is they won't know about it and they won't be able to make a legal challenge. The ACLU describes the paltry reporting requirements here.

More...

(2 comments, 901 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments

How to Present the Petraeus Report

Hugh Hewitt at Town Hall has a proposal for the White House on how to present the mid-September report of General Petraeus. He argues against having only an announcement and a press gaggle with the traditional White House Press Corps present to ask a few questions.

It is the right of the American people, and especially those families that have sacrificed so much through the loss of a loved one, and the men and women of the military who are called on to bear the burden, to receive both an unmediated report from the general, but also a serious set of tough questions.

I'm flattered to be included on Hugh's list of "new media" representatives he recommends for selection. (I'm also available.)

Hugh's specific proposal is below:

(4 comments, 586 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments

The WMD Dodge

Kevin Drum writes:

Sure, the war skeptics might have been afraid to go against the herd, but I think that was just an outgrowth of something more concrete: a fear of being provably wrong. After all, everyone agreed that Saddam Hussein was a brutal and unpredictable thug and almost everyone agreed that he had an active WMD program. . . . This meant that war skeptics had to go way out on a limb: if they opposed the war, and it subsequently turned out that Saddam had an advanced WMD program, their credibility would have been completely shot. Their only recourse would have been to argue that Saddam never would have used his WMD, an argument that, given Saddam's temperament, would have sounded like special pleading even to most liberals. In the end, then, they chickened out, but it had more to do with fear of being wrong than with fear of being shunned by the foreign policy community.

With all due respect to Kevin, who has been doing some great blogging lately, this is sheer nonsense. I believed Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and a desire to gain nuclear weapons (but it was clear he he was not close to gaining them or even that he had a viable plan for it.) But like others who believed Saddam had WMD, I vehemently opposed the Iraq Debacle. Let's look at why those of us did.

(83 comments, 4345 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments

Sunday Morning Democrats' Debate

Update: The transcript of the debate is available here. My final thoughts: Hillary and Richardson really did well today. Biden was better than usual. Edwards was good but failed to break out of the pack. Obama had little of substance to say and didn't seem to get much time. Kucinich and Gravel were...Kucinich and Gravel. Dodd was good.

Here's a video of Hillary saying Karl Rove isn't going to endorse her and seems obsessed with her.

Update: I'm watching after all.

8:00 Strange opening...GS introduces them by their poll ratings. Obama at 27%, Hillary and Edwards at 26%. First question: Is Barack Obama ready to be President and is Hillary electable?

Obama half of the queston goes to Hillary, who answers saying she's running on her own record. Dodd skirts as well. Then goes to Dodd.

They are all subdued. Probably because its so early in the morning. Biden really seems tired. He tries to skirt and then when confronted with him saying Obama wasn't ready in the past, says he stands by that statement. Richardson cracks a joke, saying with Obama you get change, with Hillary you get experience, with him you get both. He says Obama is a geat guy and a fresh voice.

Obama cracks a joke too. "To prepare for the debate I rode in the bumper cars at the state fair."

They've woken up.

More...

(23 comments, 1352 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments

Saturday :: August 18, 2007

On Experts: It's The Dishonesty, Stupid

Gideon Rose, the editor of Foreign Affairs, has struck back against the mean blogs:

The lefty blogosphere, meanwhile, has gotten itself all in a tizzy over the failings of the "foreign policy community. . . . First, many of the people in the various national security bureaucracies are indeed Humphreys, and deserve to have their every move and utterance treated with great skepticism. . . .

But that of course is a description of the two peole subject to the "blogger tizzy," Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack. They chose to describe themselves as war critics when they were Iraq Debacle and Surge supporters. They lied. And predictably, I think they knew this personally, their lies were used for the purpose of giving their analysis credibility it did not deserve. It was the dishonesty, stupid. Much like these lies from McCain:

It’s entertaining, in that I was the greatest critic of the initial four years, three and a half years. I came back from my first trip to Iraq and said, This is going to fail. We’ve got to change the strategy to the one we’re using now. But life isn’t fair.

Greatest critic? My left cheek:

(30 comments, 426 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments

Iraq: Reducing Troop Levels To Back Where We Started

The Bush Administration's purpose for the Surge has always been to distract from the call for withdrawal from Iraq. In today's NYTimes, they admit it:

White House to Offer Iraq Plan of Gradual Cuts

The White House plans to use a report next month assessing progress in Iraq to outline a plan for gradual troop reductions beginning next year that would fall far short of the drawdown demanded by Congressional opponents of the war, according to administration and military officials. One administration official made it clear that the goal of the planned announcement was to counter public pressure for a more rapid reduction and to try to win support for a plan that could keep American involvement in Iraq on “a sustainable footing” at least through the end of the Bush presidency.

Now Bush gets to announce troop reductions. But the reductions will, in the best of circumstances, leave us at troop levels that existed prior to the Surge. Oh by the way, this too will be a NEW strategy:

The officials said the White House would portray its approach as a new strategy for Iraq, a message aimed primarily at the growing numbers of Congressional Republicans who have criticized President Bush’s handling of the war. Many Republicans have urged Mr. Bush to unveil a new strategy, and even to propose a gradual reduction of American troops to the levels before this year’s troop increase — about 130,000 — or even lower to head off Democratic-led efforts to force the withdrawal of all combat forces by early next year.

This has always been nothing but a game for the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans. The Surge may have been a serious strategy for General Petraeus. For the Bush Administration it has always been an attempt to run out the clock until the end of his term. More.

(19 comments, 647 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments

Friday :: August 17, 2007

Late Night: Eagles New Song "How Long"

Just click on "How Long" to play. Despite what I said earlier about it being "so.... Eagles. Really, like 1973 Eagles" it's really catchy. I like it more each time I hear it.

Or you can visit the Eagles My Space page.

(4 comments) Permalink :: Comments

Puerto Ricans Say No to Kids Becoming "Colonial Cannon Meat"

Anti-war Activists in Puerto Rico are meeting with success by visiting high schools and handing out flyers to students.

At the bottom of the leaflet was a tear sheet that students could sign and later hand to teachers, to request that students' personal contact information not be released to the U.S. Defense Department or to anyone involved in military recruiting.

....As a result, 57 percent of Puerto Rico's 10th-, 11th- and 12th-graders, or their parents, have signed forms over the past year withholding contact information from the Pentagon -- effectively barring U.S. recruiters from reaching out to an estimated 65,000 high school students.

The requirement of providing information to the Pentagon is part of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, all schools receiving U.S. federal funding must provide their students' names, addresses and phone numbers to the military unless the child or parents sign an opt-out form.

....Juan Dalmau, secretary general of the Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP) [says]his efforts are saving the island's children from becoming "colonial cannon meat."

Here's an idea that needs to spread to the mainland U.S:

More...

(25 comments, 512 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments

Will Heaton: Wear a Wire, Get Probation


Earlier this week I wrote about former Bob Ney staffer Will Heaton who cooperated with the feds and wore a wire to tape conversations with Ney. Heaton was facing up to five years in jail. His sentencing guidelines were 18 to 24 months.

Heaton was sentenced today to two years probation.

The indirect beneficiary of Heaton's cooperation, of course, will be Jack Abramoff, whose final sentence reduction has not yet been determined.

Permalink :: Comments

Lederman and Kerr Discuss FISA

at Bloggingheads. Marty is right as usual. Kerr is less right than usual.

(2 comments) Permalink :: Comments

Who Was James Lee Witt And Why Does Rudy Get Away With "Misstatements?"

Rudy Giuliani said:

The truth? This:

. . . [A]n exhaustively detailed account from his mayoral archive, revised after the events to account for last-minute changes on scheduled stops, does exist for the period of Sept. 17 to Dec. 16, 2001. It shows he was there for a total of 29 hours in those three months, often for short periods or to visit locations adjacent to the rubble. In that same period, many rescue and recovery workers put in daily 12-hour shifts.

Rudy Giuliani has trouble with the truth. When will the Media notice? As for James Lee Witt, remember this?

(12 comments, 340 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments

Friday Bits and Pieces and Open Thread

I'm still in court mode today, happily back in Denver, so I've only got highlights for you until tonight.

  • No plea yet from Michael Vick, but very bad allegations from his two co-defendants who got cooperation deals:
The court papers, filed as Quanis Phillips, 28, and Purnell Peace, 35, pleaded guilty to dogfighting charges Friday, said all three men "executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in testing sessions" in April of this year by methods such as hanging and drowning.

Peace, of Virginia Beach, and Phillips, of Atlanta, said the money behind the Bad Newz Kennels dogfighting operation, based on property Vick owns in Virginia, came "almost exclusively" from the Atlanta Falcons star. And they confirmed to prosecutors that all the accusations in the 18-page indictment are true.

  • The Eagles are releasing their first new album in 28 years, Long Road Out of Eden. I heard the single, Long Road, on the radio this morning. It's so.... Eagles. Really, like 1973 Eagles. There's no mistaking them for anyone else and I love the Eagles, particularly Don Henley, but still, it's like going back in time. Then I read it's not a new song:
How Long' is sung by Don Henley and Glenn Frey and was written by J.D. Souther. How Long' is one of Souther's earliest songs. It first appeared on his 1972 debut 'John David Souther'.

More...

(43 comments, 529 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments

<< Previous 12 Next 12 >>