George Bush is in real trouble. His opponents now have him by the short and curlies and it is just a matter of whether they let him go or squeeze and twist. Bush’s biggest problem is that he has admitted his crime and many Republicans agree without reservation that it was a crime. Put simply, he is asking to be allowed to get away with breaking the law, and to be allowed to continue to break the law.
But, the GOP will absolutely fracture over this. There is no way that the GOP, filled with people with a strong libertarian streak, is going to go along with Bush. Here is some evidence.
Here’s Arlen Specter’s take on things:
“That’s wrong, clearly and categorically wrong,” Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said today on the Senate floor. “This will be a matter for oversight by the Judiciary committee as soon as we can get to it in the new year — a very, very high priority item.”
Here is Lindsay Graham on Face the Nation (.pdf):
and:
Sen. GRAHAM: I want to see the statute. I want to see the executive order. Whatever legal authority was used, I want someone to explain to me how it justified not going to a court that was set up for this very purpose. And there may be reason and we are at war and I applaud the president for being aggressive. But we cannot set aside the rule of law in a time of war because that’s what we’re fighting for in Iraq, for them to follow the law, not an outcome. I don’t want an outcome-based process in Iraq. I want something they’ve never had– protections for everybody.
George Will says:
On the assumption that Congress or a court would have been cooperative in September 2001, and that the cooperation could have kept necessary actions clearly lawful without conferring any benefit on the nation’s enemies, the president’s decision to authorize NSA’s surveillance without the complicity of a court or Congress was a mistake. Perhaps one caused by this administration’s almost metabolic urge to keep Congress unnecessarily distant and hence disgruntled.
Here is Bob Barr on CNN (some of the conversation is misattributed, but I think you can figure out who said what):
BLITZER: Americans spying on Americans. In a story first reported today by the “New York Times” and confirmed by our own sources here at CNN, President Bush is said to have authorized the super secret National Security Agency to conduct electronic eavesdropping here at home. The president is saying only that he won’t discuss ongoing intelligence operations.
Joining us now are two conservative Republicans who have very different views on this issue. From Atlanta, the former Congressman and CNN contributor, Bob Barr, and from Capitol Hill, California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.
Congressman Barr, what’s wrong with what the president has decided to do?
BOB BARR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: What’s wrong with it is several-fold. One, it’s bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it’s bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it’s bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order.
So it’s bad all around, and we need to get to the bottom of this. BLITZER: Do you agree, Congressman Rohrabacher — I suspect you don’t.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER, (R) CALIFORNIA: No. What’s really bad is the fact that we have an evil opponent who wants to blow us up and that six months after 3,000 of our American citizens were slaughtered right in front of our eyes, that we were confronted with this challenge. I’m really sorry that we have this kind of evil enemy that wants to slaughter us, but I’m very happy that we have a president that, six months after they slaughtered 3,000 of our citizens, he decided to follow up on a lead that was given to our people by breaking up an al Qaeda cell in Pakistan, and followed through on that to make sure that there wasn’t another imminent attack, and thus probably saving many thousands of American lives. We can be proud of President Bush for protecting us.
BLITZER: Congressman Barr, what do you say?
BARR: Well, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is the Constitution, and I took an oath to abide by it. My good friend, my former colleague, Dana Rohrabacher, did and the president did. And I don’t really care very much whether or not it can be justified based on some hypothetical. The fact of the matter is that, if you have any government official who deliberately orders that federal law be violated despite the best of motives, that certainly ought to be of concern to us.
ROHRABACHER: 9/11 is not a hypothetical. We are at war.
BARR: No, but the hypothetical is the — the other cases you were talking about.
ROHRABACHER: Bob, now that we are at war, that is not hypothetical. We have an enemy that has decided that they’re going to terrorize the American population by committing mass murder. That is not hypothetical. We are at war, and sometimes at war you —
BLITZER: No, what you were saying, Dana, is that there were other case — those are hypothetical —
ROHRABACHER: No, that’s not — Bob, you haven’t read this. No, that’s not hypothetical at all. One of the cases that was involved in this, was someone who was attempting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and because of these wire taps, we were able to stop that.
BARR: No, you’re wrong there, Dana. First of all —
ROHRABACHER: And by the way, how do we know who wasn’t deterred from blowing up other targets. The fact is —
BARR: Well, gee, I guess then the president should be able to ignore whatever provision in the Constitution as long as there’s something after the fact that justifies it.
BARR: Bob, during wartime, you give some powers to the presidency you wouldn’t give in peace time.
BARR: Do we have a declaration of war, Dana?
ROHRABACHER: You don’t have to do that.
BARR: We don’t? That makes it even much easier for a president.
ROHRABACHER: No, you just have to make sure that the people of the United States understand that we are at war. They understand that al Qaeda slaughtered 3,000 of our citizens — more people than the Japanese slaughtered at Pearl Harbor.
BLITZER: Congressman — let me interject for a second, Congressman Rohrabacher.
ROHRABACHER: Sure.
BLITZER: Everything you say is true, but why not go through the process of either getting new legislation authorizing this or let the court orders be fully implemented? In other words, before the NSA goes and eavesdrops on Americans, get a court order?
BLITZER: First of all, let us note that all this eavesdropping on Americans were that, there were some people living in the United States, whether they’re American citizens or not — we don’t know how many are American citizens — that were involved with contacts overseas. This is eavesdropping on people who were doing international calls and the list that we got, came from what — came from an al Qaeda cell that we broke up in Pakistan.
I am very pleased that our president didn’t wait around but, instead, ran right forward immediately to try to follow up on this and find out what they were planning. I believe he probably thwarted several major attacks by doing that.
BLITZER: Congressman Barr, do you want to respond to that?
BARR: Here again, this is absolutely a bizarre conversation where you have a member of Congress saying that it’s okay for the president of the United States to ignore U.S. law, to ignore the Constitution, simply because we are in an undeclared war.
The fact of the matter is the law prohibits — specifically prohibits — what apparently was done in this case, and for a member of Congress to say, oh, that doesn’t matter, I’m proud that the president violated the law is absolutely astounding, Wolf.
ROHRABACHER: Not only proud, we can be grateful to this president. You know, I’ll have to tell you, if it was up to Mr. Schumer, Senator Schumer, they probably would have blown up the Brooklyn Bridge. The bottom line is this: in wartime we expect our leaders, yes, to exercise more authority.
Now, I have led the fight to making sure there were sunset provisions in the Patriot Act, for example. So after the war, we go back to recognizing the limits of government. But we want to put the full authority that we have and our technology to use immediately to try to thwart terrorists who are going to — how about have a nuclear weapon in our cities?
BARR: And the Constitution be damned, Dana?
ROHRABACHER: Well, I’ll tell you something, if a nuclear weapon goes off in Washington, DC, or New York or Los Angeles, it’ll burn the Constitution as it does. So I’m very happy we have a president that’s going to wiretap people’s communication with people overseas to make sure that they’re not plotting to blow up one of our cities.
BLITZER: We’re out of time, but Bob Barr, I’ll give you the last word.
BARR: Well, first of all, or last of all, this so-called plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was bogus because it had to do with a group of idiots who were planning to dismantle it with blow torches.
BLITZER: That will have to be the last word and we’re going to continue this discussion down the road. Dana Rohrabacher, Congressman, thanks very much for joining us.
ROHRABACHER: Thank you.
BLITZER: Congressman Bob Barr, thanks to you as well. An important issue, indeed.
Bush is about to get slapped down.
The Neochickens are left standing all alone in their own dribble and spittle as they rant and rave that they can break the law all they want to. heh
great catch.
Yes, the Republicans can not plug this ship now. Bush needed to explain himself, say he was exercising an excess of caution, and promise to go to Congress to find a statutory solution for the future. His reaction makes this an indisputable impeachable offense and everyone knows it.
A different ship has left the harbor, for those who missed it.
God. (From an agnostic perspective, that is.)
We gave the Turks our word that the Kurds would not have their own state. What are these people smokin’?
“So dudes, listen to this. As it turns out… like… it was the Iranians the whole time. No shit. [Deep breath, passes the hash.] Not cool, I hear ya man. What can I say? So, so totally our bad. But the fact is man, Iran’s and extreme regime…. pointing right at ya… kaboom!
And we got this Syria thing. Yeah seriously. Syria… let me hit that… so here’s the thing. So seriously, Syria… [giggles]..say it with me man… “so seriously Syria”… hard to say, know what I’m sayin’? Sure. Seriously, seriously… Syria…
Okay, okay. I hear ya, but the thing is… last time was so way not the same, we’re talkin’ two countries man. Two. Okay, if you’re gonna bring up Afghanistan. Just check it out. Look at it man. Two countries, three dossiers, count ’em, three.. [holds up 2 fingers] I’m just sayin’ this shit is for real [takes hit, coughs] this time so help me God. [Crosses fingers, forgets to put hand behind back.] Yeah, whatever… like I was sayin’
More likely a crack pipe… But funny! lol
although if you’ve ever seen “Midnight Express” I don’t recommend it.
Big Bonus Video from Think Progress…
Bush in April of 2003:
“A Wiretap Requires A Court Order. Nothing Has Changed.”
Play Video Now!
So he certainly knew it was illegal.
CNN actually played that video about a half hour ago!!
They must be paying attention to the Blogs… Because they would never break anything new these days… lol
I just love the way BUsh has been saying “trust me” lately. He’s been saying that constantly since 911.
This week, however, he’s done it once too many times. Those press conferences were like catching Bush in the middle of the act of taking the cookies out of the cookie jar. The light came down on him, he froze and said “just trust me!!” with that most classic deer-caught-in-the-headlights look. 😀
I hope you’re right, BooMan. Every time I think BushCo’s finally hit bottom, it turns out to be a false bottom that they just kick through and we all keep right on falling. It has to end somewhere though, and I hope and pray to gods I don’t even believe in that you’re right and that it ends here.
Yes …. and on the NPR show “To The Point” yesterday, Bob Barr was a guest and said FLAT OUT that Bush broke the law.
LISTEN
— that’s the same program on which David Cole, a constitutional law expert, spoke
More from the same transcript — from the genius, Pat Roberts:
I think that this will simply fracture the nation more. Once again we will end up in thirds: the Bushies, the left, and the “I don’t cares”.
If anything this will lift Bush’s numbers. There is a stong authoritarian streak in Americans. Sometimes this has been helpful: it assisted both Lincoln and Roosevelt during tough times.
In the end, it will come down to how far the Democrats like Feingold, Conyers and Boxer can take this, while keeping Reid and others with them. If they can create a governmental crisis then we may see some results. But I do not see that happening. In the end, the Dems will fold up their tent and once again the Republicans will know the true nature of the opposition.
(Obviously, I hope I am wrong.
Let me be clear: I think the government should completely shut down over this. I think all activity in Congress should stop until the executive branch is reigned in.
I won’t happen though. The Congress is filled with new style Republicans and old style Democrats: the Republicans believe only in money and power; the Democrats believe in compromise and governance.)
If anything this will lift Bush’s numbers. There is a stong authoritarian streak in Americans. Sometimes this has been helpful: it assisted both Lincoln and Roosevelt during tough times…
Good point.
Yesterday — and I forget who said it — some talking heads were saying that the Democrats may have blundered in making this a big issue re national security because a lot of Americans will think that such measures are necessary against extremists.
Sigh. (And I hope you’re wrong too.)
Susan, I can understand your concern, but for all of the time I have been visiting this site, I keep reading from folks here that the big problem with the Dems is they will not fight. If we can’t fight over the Bill of Rights, what is worth a real scrap?? These are indeed trying times. Let’s pat folks like Boxer, Slaughter, Kerry, Conyers and the like on the back. Then hold our breath, and hope the republic is still standing next year at this time.
Why is it that every Democrat on every news program is asked point blank;
“What about what the administration says, that technology changes that so fast that they needed this to protect the American people?”
Instead of a simple answer, they run at the mouth on legislation, blah-blah-blah making it sound like a bureaucratic nightmare. Why don’t they say instead;
“The Administration has the exactly same ability to protect national security now, legally. Instantly. But instead of following the law to protect the American people, this President repeatedly went around it. No American, not even the President is above the law.”
Now the Republicans are framing it as, “Let’s sit down with the legislators and see if we can’t get a law…”
That’s not the fucking point! Why make redundant laws especially when we have a President who doesn’t think he needs to follow the law anyway?
Hey Dems, give us the 30 second answer first. And then you’re free to blah-blah-blah.
Hop your froggy butts over to HuffPo and read Kristen Breitweiser’s The King’s Red Herring.
Her message to you is need to know, and for some of you, your history is about to change.
“President Bush should be stopped in his tracks with regard to his use of 9/11 scare tactics to circumvent constitutional laws that are meant to protect U.S. citizens. His justification for doing so — the inability to conduct surveillance on the 9/11 hijackers — is a red herring. History will bear out the truth — our intelligence agencies held a treasure trove of intelligence on the 9/11 hijackers, intelligence that was gathered through their initially unencumbered surveillance. President Bush should busy himself by investigating why that information was then stymied and not capitalized upon to stop the 9/11 attacks.”
that this president DESERVES impeachment perhaps more than any other, my sad experience tells me that it is never going to happen.
Nothing — NOTHING — is going to come of this, other than some blowhard political posturing, and maybe an ineffectual hearing or two. Nothing came of the stolen election(s), nothing came of the Downing Street Memos (minutes), nothing came of Abu Ghraib, nothing came of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead or maimed for a bunch of lies.
It has been the mantra of totalitarians from time immemorial: in order to preserve your security, we must take away your freedom. It is an argument that we, as a nation, have bought lock, stock, and barrel since 9/11.
By the way, I’m taking bets the Patriot Act gets passed, maybe with a constitutional fig leaf here and there, but with the basic assault on our individual liberties intact.
Get used to it, folks. It is only the beginning.
I posted this earlier in a slightly different form in a different diary; wish I coluld change my mind.
according to syble edmonds, even when conversation was monitered, it was ignored by this administration and the doj threatened her to keep her quiet. we must not forget this one either. so in my opinion, what difference does it make when they ignore the conversation and what it leads to. I think this is just a big dog and pony show to cover up everything that they have done from day one. they knew about 9/11 and let it happen. this has gone on for over 5 years now. they do not want to be found out for any of the feces of things they have done…
There you go again, Brenda, observantly reminding us of one American who spoke truth to power … Boo knows a lot about Sibel Edmonds. Maybe he can write something up about that.
My question is: What do these revelations do to the Alito confirmation hearings? I’m not a Alito expert, so I’d be interested in knowing people’s thoughts.
Oh and the image of Bush’s short and curlies is one I could live without, thank you very much.
are probably longer than what they surroud. That’s probably the fundamental reason for the way he acts.
Heard Sen. Boxer on the radio basically demanding that an investigation into wire tapping should trump the Alito confirmation. I think the Senate is getting ready to blow up. Also believe that Bush will now be forced to pull the trigger on Syria and Iran to save his ass.
Ductape’s post above links to efforts to enlist Turkey for use of airspace and bases. I think we have bad shit coming. If we attack Iran we’re in for a world war IMO
Now can we put some jumper cables on those short and curlies?
Rohrabacher got that Congressional district because he was Ronnie Rayguns speech writer.
I can’t believe I used to know that fucking asshole.
Ah, don’t blame yourself. We all have to deal with the gigantically stupid and insufferably arrogant at times.
Of course I’ve always wondered how Mr. drank everything but the bong water came to be a presidential speechwriter.
Oh well. He clearly is too stupid to realize he’s a member of Congress, not WH staff.
I really, truly hope that enough Republicans put country before party and draft a bi-partisan Bill of Impeachment. We can’t wait until ’06. Bushco must be stopped now. He’s admitted to a felony and he’s proud of committing it and intends to keep on violating any laws that get in the way of what he and his advisors think is best — for them! He’s so out of touch with reality it’s frightening.
What else are they doing that we don’t know about yet? What else are they planning to distract us from THIS? I’m afraid, really afraid.
nothing important changes just because facts come out.
The most we can hope for is a few words from Repubs to back Bush off a little in the future. But there is absolutely no way that any major interest blocks supporting the right will tolerate action that leads to a change of government to the Democrats.
All right, then — how about some relatively sane Republicans?
This is the problem: When one party controls both the Congress and the Presidency and the Supreme Court, and is unable or unwilling to police itself, you have the formula for despotism. You have an Attorney General who issues opinions permitting the President to do anything on the basis of an implied authority as Commander in Cheif. You have a Congress who abandons ethics investigations and any oversight over administration excesses.
But worst of all, you end up with a sycophantic press, either sucking up to ensure access, or too intimidated to pursue any stories that are opposed by the Partei.
Beyond the Prez shredding the constitution and spying on Americans without court authorization, I would like to ask a couple of questions. As we are all too familiar, GW’s mantra has been that we must fight them over there so that (everybody repeat with me ) we don’t have to fight them over here. Right??
Then, what is the motive for spying on Americans (folks over here) if not to prevent the bad guys (who are over here) from doing more terrible stuff to the rest of us? In other words, the very fact that he feels it necessary to spy on folks here, destroys his notion of why we must fight them over there. (They are here already!!!)
BTW: This Iran thing continues to scare the Hell out of me. The rhetoric coming out of Iran seems very aggressive towards Israel at this rather inopportune moment for us. Here we are trying to confront GW, and tensions are increasing in the Mid East. as I concluded a couple of weeks back with my ill fated Ode To BushCo:
And some folks say in Iraq we’re progressing,
now that’s mystifying, and awfully depressing.
So as oil stores drop while demand is still booming,
BushCo looks east, is another war looming??