home

FISA: "Tough Guy" Webb On Why He Cowered Before Bush

Jim Webb likes to project "toughness." But when it came to FISA, he cowered before Bush. Here is his "explanation":

Yesterday I supported two measures to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. These measures were considered against the backdrop of heightened concerns from our nation's intelligence community abut the threat of international terrorism. The ramifications of the two amendments before us last night were not political. Instead they related to the urgent demands of national security. I chose to heed those warnings. We now have six months to work in earnest to bring full accountability to the process. This distinction and the threats to national security were stated clearly by Admiral McConnell as well as four of the eight Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. These members, Senators Feinstein, Mikulski, Bayh, and Bill Nelson, have extensive experience on intelligence matters and are respected champions of civil rights and liberties. They chose to give significant weight and deference to the intelligence community on FISA reform, and so did I.

The Rockefeller bill took care of the problem. What Webb is saying is he voted for the MCConnell bill because Bush threatened to veto the Dem bill. In short, Webb cowered before Bush's veto threat. Some tough guy. Showing the way to capitulation to Bush.

< Yearly Kos, The Anti-War Movement and Cooptation of The Netroots | Bush FISA Amendment Now Debated In House; Bill Passes >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    again. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 06:15:18 PM EST


    Non-partisan (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by manys on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:53:55 AM EST
    The reason this went through is because the FISA revisions were wanted by both sides.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:05:41 AM EST
    There comes a time (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 10:13:15 AM EST
    There comes a time when giving in to the demolition of constitutional protections can no longer be considered a matter of being weak or unthinking. Rather it must be considered complicity.
    Enough Already with the Pathetic Excuses
    MB at dKos this morning

    [ Parent ]
    Respected champions of establishment wisdom (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by joejoejoe on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:01:37 PM EST
    Which is to say....useful idiots.

    A secret FISA court (with a judge likely appointed by either John Roberts or William Rehnquist) found something in the Bush surveillance to be out of bounds and the Democratic Congress rushes to REMOVE the only effective oversight that we've seen in 7 years which is judicial review. It boggles the mind.

    Can I get my 8th grade report card changed to make my American Civics credits changed into Contemporary Fiction? Because what I learned about our Constitution in now apparently useless. People like Marty Lederman may as well be Victrola repairmen for all of the use it does to be an expert on the law.

    Did he really say that? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Sumner on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:13:31 PM EST
    These members, Senators Feinstein, Mikulski, Bayh, and Bill Nelson, have extensive experience on intelligence matters and are respected champions of civil rights and liberties.

    Huh?

    Webb certifies DiFi a champion? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Sumner on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:26:53 PM EST
    Like David Keen once said about DiFi's War Profiteering:

    California Sen.  Dianne Feinstein (D) chairs the Senate Rules Committee, but she's also a Cardinal. She is currently chairwoman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee, but until last year was for six years the top Democrat on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies (or "Milcon") sub-committee, where she may have directed more than $1 billion to companies controlled by her husband.

    If the inferences finally coming out about what she did while on Milcon prove true, she may be on the way to morphing from a respected senior Democrat into another poster child for congressional corruption.

    She resigned as chair of Milcon after reports that for years she abused her position to bilk billions of dollars in awards to her husband's companies in government contracts. Some experience, alright.

    FISA bill Bayh (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by sab on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:16:03 AM EST
    Why are you beating up on Webb? I think Webb has earned the right to have his own judgment on the FISA bill respected. Not so much for Bayh (Mr. I'm in the Rose Garden in photo op with Bush for AUMF when his party leader Daschle was trying desperately to put together a resolution to prevent the Gathering Disaster in Iraq) and Diane Feinstein (I'm a Democrat although everyone I know personally is an investment banker who profits enormously under Bush's administration.)There were a sixteen Democrats who voted for the new FISA abomonation. Why are you picking on Webb?

    sab (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:17:16 PM EST
     
    Why are you picking on Webb?

    Because he didn't do what they wanted.

    [ Parent ]

    Why Webb? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Scarabus on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 06:52:06 PM EST
    Because he ran on one set of principles and is voting on another. He has betrayed us. If he is going to vote the same way "Macaca" would have voted, then why did we waste our time and money and hope?

    [ Parent ]
    Scarabus (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:18:06 PM EST
    then why did we waste our time and money and hope?

    Because you wanted to.

    And you are free to keep on doing it.

    [ Parent ]

    Bush style (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 06:48:30 AM EST
    fear mongering.

    Webb is still a reaganite (none / 0) (#10)
    by Reasonable on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:59:12 AM EST
    when webb ran he stated that he still thought addled ronnie was the best president ever. Remember he only resigned from that administration because his hero wouldn't bankrupt the country fast enough to pay for all the new toys webb wanted to have. He never acknowledged or accepted that Iran/Contra was a criminal activity or that Congress had any right to limit his hero's cowboy ways.
    So with that sort of deficient judgement who isn't surprised that when push comes to shove he acts as a fifth column and slips the shiv into the D's agenda whenever anybody try's to limit the money or activities that the merc's that are todays us military get to have.

    This vote wasn't for bush but rather for the toy soldiers that he still admires you know the ones in intelligence who missed 9/11 and the brave heros of Haditha, Abu Ghabil and marines executing civilians.

    No surprise that all is sacrificed on the alter of militarism for the man who is to much of a coward to run in his own republican party that he helped shape but rather ran as a false flag candidate in as a D.

    Terror red flag? (none / 0) (#12)
    by dzinegrp on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 06:02:13 PM EST
    Another important point could be inferred from Webb's comments on his vote: That the Congress was given reliable intelligence on a pending terror event in the US - not that the Bushies wouldn't use that very stick to get their way. Still... the Dems have been burned before, perhaps they are capable of assessing the validity of the intelligence.

    One can only hope.