KOS Diary: Defense of Dems voting for FISA...and of the bill...

[SaveElmer]

I don't entirely agree with this, but it is a good defense of the Democrats that voted for it...and he makes some valid points...

Webb's FISA vote was necessary and proper

by JCWilmore
Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:49:03 AM PDT

Jim Webb's decision to vote for a temporary six-month extension of the FISA program was the right decision to make at this moment and I support him one-hundred percent. Here is Webb's statement about his reasons for voting as he did:

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.

There is near uniform, bipartisan agreement on the need to reform FISA to reflect modern telecommunications and information technology. We must do so in a way that safeguards basic civil and constitutional rights. But we must also remember that the terrorist threat to the nation is extremely serious. I remain fully committed to bringing accountability to this process, and to protecting the privacy rights of all Americans.

Predictably Webb has come under fire from that part of the Democratic Party that thinks everything should be done perfectly, on the first try, and without expending any real effort.

Here are the realities:

1. Despite the amount of false propaganda spread by the Republican Party, our nation does in fact have dangerous enemies. The terrorist threat is very real, though it is also very different from the way the Republicans, and in particular the administration of George W. Bush, have described it.
2. FISA has needed an overhaul for many years now. Be thankful that it will be Democrats that will rewrite this bill instead of the Republicans. If Republicans rewrote this bill most Americans would end up being implanted with microchips to monitor their private thoughts.
3. FISA is broken and the George W. Bush broke it. Because Bush and his cronies pushed the exisiting law too far, they ended up losing a court case and severely damaged our ability to obtain intelligence. This was the result of sloppiness and a total disregard for the rule of law on the part of the Republicans.
4. It will take time to rewrite FISA, and in the meantime we needed some kind of temporary legislation to buy time for Congress to work on a new version of FISA. The bills Jim Webb voted for provide for this temporary bridge.
5. We may need another temporary extension of FISA, lasting until the end of the Bush administration. When this law is rewritten it needs to be rewritten by Democratic-dominated Congress and signed off on by a Democratic President. Any rewrite of this law under the current administration would bear the unholy fingerprints of Bush, Cheney and Gonzales--and in consequence would be deeply flawed from its outset.

Clearly we cannot stop investigating and vigorously pursuing terrorists until the Bush administration slithers into retirement. My preference would be to renew this legislation every few months, keeping Bush on a short leash and running out the clock.

With some hard work and some luck, a new Democratic administration will take office in 2009 and will be able to work with a Democratic Congress that includes a solid majority in the House and no less than sixty Democratic Senators (not including Lieberman). Once these factors are in place, FISA can be rewritten "in a way that safeguards basic civil and constitutional rights."

The only way we fail is if we allow Bush and his allies in the mainstream media to turn this six-month temporary patch into some kind of grand victory that can be used to divide the Democratic Party.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/5/124531/4040

[ProSense]

1. Complete BS! FISA Amendment and The Founders:

The FISA Amendment and The Founders

[flyarm]

2. BS!!..crapola!..eom

[kid a]

3. Really....??? "Feinstein, Mikulski, Bayh, and Bill Nelson...

"Feinstein, Mikulski, Bayh, and Bill Nelson, have extensive experience on intelligence matters and are respected champions of civil rights and liberties."

I'd like to see references for this statement.

[Me.]

5. I Think The Counterpoint Would Be

that there were those on the intelligence committee who voted against the bill, and certainly others who have extensive experience in intelligence matters that also voted against the bill.

[Mojorabbit]

11. I almost choked

on my soda when I read that about Bill Nelson. LOL

[flyarm]

32. excuse me?? do you know bill nelsons voting records??

he is a freaking joke!

i know he is my senator and i can't stand his stands or votes!

he does not represent me or my democratic values..not one bit!

fly

[zulchzulu]

4. Webb should take a crap on Jefferson's desk in Monticello, Virginia

That's pretty much what he's done politically. If I lived in Virginia, I'd offer to drive him there so he could do just that and could use a soft toilet paper version of the Bill of Rights to wipe his ass.

What the hell is wrong with the current FISA law? You had 72 hours to go before a judge to say you were spying on someone without a warrant. How is that not enough? It's pure appeasement to the King George's Court of Criminals.

[countmyvote4real]

9. I'll second that because you said it better than I could.

I absolutely agree with your post.

[NoodleBoy]

6. I agree with this fully, but the OP forgot one thing:

this quote: "With some hard work and some luck, a new Democratic administration will take office in 2009..."

The OP forgot something-- most people who are complaining on the internet right now will not put in the hard work necessary. If they did put in as much work as actual activists as they do in bickering like 6 year olds and calling themselves "netroots," we'd have the election in the bag.

[ProudDad]

26. Right

:sarcasm:

ObamClintWards will take care of us...

Yeah, Right :sarcasm:

Only if it doesn't harm their corporate capitalist masters or the military-industrial complex that owns them...

Don't hold your breath -- the odds are you either don't have Health insurance or if you do, you're underinsured and they'll call it a pre-existing condition and not pay for your care... Oh, bye the bye, that ain't gonna change with ObamClintWards either....

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

33. "Most people who are complaining on the internet...will not put in the hard work necessary.."I call

BULLSHIT.

You have nothing that supports the premise of your statement.

MKJ

[OzarkDem]

47. The right wing news media says it

That's their favorite Rove talking point these days - the netroots are crazy liberals who don't work on campaigns or get involved in the real world. No, they don't donate to campaigns either.

Riiiight...:sarcasm:

As in 2006 you may be surprised again to find the opposite is true and you'll learn it the hard way.

[Bumblebee]

7. Even the editorial writers of the WP know this was a total CYA and surrender

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/05/AR2007080501050.html

This is as reckless as it was unnecessary. Democrats had presented a compromise plan that would have permitted surveillance to proceed, but with court review and an audit by the Justice Department's inspector general, to be provided to Congress, about how many Americans had been surveilled. Democrats could have stuck to their guns and insisted on their version. Instead, nervous about being blamed for any terrorist attack and eager to get out of town, they accepted the unacceptable. Most Democrats opposed the measure, but enough (16 in the Senate, 41 in the House) went with Republicans to allow it to pass, and the leadership enabled that result.

There is one small saving grace here: These sweeping new powers expire after six months. Of course, having dropped the audit requirement, lawmakers won't have a good way of knowing how many Americans had their communications intercepted. The administration will no doubt again play the national security card. Democratic leaders say they want to move quickly to fix the damage. If only we could be more confident that they won't get rolled again.

[flpoljunkie]

40. No court review, no audit by the Justice Dept's inspector general, no accountability!

The story of the most corrupt and inept administration in our history--worst president ever!

[TankLV]

8. While I inherently disagree with your premise at it's heart - you make some interesting observations

"When this law is rewritten it needs to be rewritten by Democratic-dominated Congress and signed off on by a Democratic President. Any rewrite of this law under the current administration would bear the unholy fingerprints of Bush, Cheney and Gonzales--and in consequence would be deeply flawed from its outset."

I hope this could the the ONLY reason for such an outrage as happened this weekend.

But I only have the past RECORD to go by.

And that record suggests that what you hope for will never happen.

Sorry.

But you and a couple others have made me think more about it...

But I still don't see how anybody can make lemonade from this lemon...

[IndianaGreen]

10. No matter how you spin it, fascism is still fascism

and far too many Democrats have played an enabling role in dismantling our Constitution and establishing a dictatorship.

I am reminded of Benjamin Franklin's words that those that choose security over liberty, deserve neither.

[Solon]

12. Bunch of bullshit, as expected...

These measures were considered against the backdrop of heightened concerns from our nation's intelligence community abut the threat of international terrorism.

Aren't these the same "intelligence" agencies whose budgets are proportionally determined by the estimated external threat they THEY make up? The CIA did, after all, falsify intelligence on Soviet military capabilities to keep its budget, why wouldn't they do the same now, along with expanded authority.

[defendandprotect]

13. Webb in fear-based thinking . . ..

Actually, I was surprised at all the Dems here talking about "frightened" Democrats!!!!
I didn't believe it!!!!
But, damn, it looks like you are right!!!

Webb says it and Bernie Sanders said it --
I have to accept it -- !!!!

HOWEVER, this is bad enough -- but where would this take us if Bush wants to invade IRAN . . .
or wants to pull another Patriot Act out of his hat? It would leave us with the same stupid decisions -- fear-based decisions -- that were made by Democrats when they gave up their authority and let Bush invade Iraq -- !!!!
This is insane!!!!

So, these guys were afraid that they'd stand up to Bush only to find that there was a new terrorist attack and they'd be blamed for it ???

YET, SOMEHOW WE LIVED UNDER THE CURRENT FISA RULES ALL THROUGH THE COLD WAR -- ??????

AND IT WAS SUFFICIENT -- !!!!

****************************************************************************************



QUOTE . . .
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.

[Mojorabbit]

14. Do you think

they are expecting an attack? Wasn't there talk about getting out of DC this summer? I can't think of any other reason for what has happened.

[LeFleur1]

23. Attack

I wonder if any American weapons that were 'lost' will be used in the attacks we so fear.

Does it really matter whether our legislators shred our civil rights or the terrorists do it?
Either way we lose our civil rights.
Are these people in Washington capable of clear thinking?

[radfringe]

15. 6-month extension followed by another extension followed by

another extension .... "We may need another temporary extension of FISA, lasting until the end of the Bush administration."

and while we are watching goal posts being moved to one new location after another - how much damage is being done to the playing field, while pinning hopes to a change of administration will result in a Dem victory?

From one poll posted here on the DU - Congress's approval is at 3%, it's not a typo, 3% approval. Overall average of all the polls puts has 29% approval

people voted for change, not just change the name plate on a door, but we have gotten more of the same. This will effect any Dem running for president, and furthers strengthens the notion that there's no difference between a dem and repub. And as 2000 and the 2004 (s)election showed - there are no guarantees the Dem will win.

in 1992 - it was former pres poppy bush running against clinton, congress had 29% approval. we were in a recession. People wanted change, and saw no difference between poppy and clinton. Perot jumped in, then jumped out, and then jumped in again. And even with all this jumping in and out - Perot received 17% of the popular vote - one of the highest, if not the highest, pecentage for a 3rd party candidate. perot is said to have taken repub votes away from poppy bush and this is why poppy lost. well, perot did, but he also got alot of dem and independent votes too.

now we have terra-terra, an unpopular war, and an economy that only works for the one-percenters. No incumbent is running for the oval office, field is wide open. People voted in 2006 for change, they are still waiting for change and getting very annoyed of being fed more of the same.

if there were any time in our history for a 3rd party / dark horse candidate to emerge and have a shot at winning it's now and at the least taking even more than 17% of the votes away from either major party.

on the repub side - McCain has pretty much crashed and burned - but there's still Guilliani with terra-terra and Romney flip-floping the kool-aid to the "faithful". and who knows if Thompson will jump in for sure or not, most likely he will.

on the dem side - Clinton and Obama are taking pot shots at each other, Edwards is poking sticks at both of them

the media is obsessed with haircuts, cleavage and manly-smells.

the DEM congress caving in, or moving the goal posts is only going to hurt dem candidates. bush's "exit" stragedy is to drag and dump - drag things out and dump them on the next president - assuming there will be a (s)election and not a corination.

bush has amassed much power, and unless he's stopped - this power will pass on to the next person by virture of the theory of "inherent powers" and precident. Who's to say the next person will use the powers wisely? And who's to say the next president will be a dem?

the way things are going - there will be a 3rd party candidate, and a very strong one too

[Meldread]

16. I agree 100%

I actually think if we see a strong third party candidate they could actually get more votes than Perot, maybe even enough to win. Everyone outside of politics, absolutely EVERYONE is sick of BOTH Democrats AND Republicans. My parents were normally always a reliable vote for the Republicans, but thanks to Bush the last thing they want to see is another Republican President. They aren't the only ones. It doesn't matter who they run, I don't see anyone I know (even reliable Republican voters) voting for a Republican. Hillary's name isn't much more popular and those same formerly reliable Republican voters are pretty much on the "anybody but Hillary" bandwagon. Some of them like Edwards and some like Obama, and I think ultimately if they get the nomination there WILL be cross over. With Hillary? These people most likely won't vote.

Throw in a third party candidate? I could see the results looking something like this:

Hillary - 33%
Giuliani - 32%
Third Party (Bloomberg maybe) - 35%

Well this is my prospective from Virginia. As long as the third party candidate has the funds to fuel his own campaign, I can see a lot of people, maybe even MOST of the people I know going third party. It wouldn't really matter much what he or she stood for, it would be a vote in rebellion against the two party system. I even know Democrats who will go Third Party if Hillary gets the nod. Most people see her as a living symbol of "more of the same" and really, if the last few elections have told us anything, people are sick of "more of the same."

Michael Bloomberg with all of his cash might actually be able to spend it to buy the Presidency, and the people will be happy to give it to him. It would be ironic, though, to see all three of our Presidential Candidates from the state of New York.

[Tellurian]

21. It is against DU Rules to advocate a Third Party..

If thats what you're interested in find another venue.

[ProudDad]

27. Hey, net nanny

Since when is speculating about what COULD HAPPEN "advocating a Third Party"?

I happen to agree that an independent candidate with $250,000,000 and a strong populist message could blow ObamClintWards and the puke of the moment out of the water in the current climate...

The only difficulty would be getting on the ballot once the Dem and repuke machines swing into full ballot access blocking mode...

[Tellurian]

28. And...whats your point?

[Usrename]

34. I think their point is this:

If the party leadership keeps up this asinine behavior, there will be enough defections in the rank and file to elect an independent in 2008. I agree. When you add in the dissatisfaction in the republican party.

I agree with what they are saying, and democrats should be concerned.

[Tellurian]

37. Your premise is a proven failure..

I know, it sounds good on paper, even better when denouncing both parties. Always remember the 2000 election. The Far Left and Greens made a point of supporting their candidate Ralph Nader vociferously against Democrats, particularly vicious against Al Gore. They vowed to vote Republican if they couldn't have Nader on the ballot. You remember what happened? Nader drew off a substantial amount of votes crucial to Gore winning Florida's electoral votes. Nader was the opening for Republicans taking advantage of a fracture within the Democratic Party. Besides the biased decision of the SCOTUS, Nader was the keystone in that election for giving us Bush!

Where Third Party activists fail, is beginning to establish themselves at local levels within state and municipal offices building a foundation on a thoughtfully conceived platform. Look around you, they've had seven years to work at it. What have they accomplished in the way of growing at a grassroots level making inroads into mainstream politics? Nada...zero...zilch...

You hear them voicing disgust with the Dem Party but have they organized a serious movement because they believe in themselves as offering visionary leadership better than the status quo? I haven't seen anything of the kind. If you have please point me to it.

[Usrename]

46. Nader? Ralph Nader?

How bout this: if the reform party had had a candidate with just a tiny speck of charisma, instead of Ross Perot, they would have breezed into the Whitehouse instead of just opening the door for Clinton. Sure there are almost always unintended consequences in third party runs, but sometimes that candidate is successful.

Florida 2000 had little to do with Ralph Nader. Sure, they only had to spoil 50 thousand votes instead of 52 thousand, but do you really think that would have changed anything if they had to spoil another two thousand ballots? I think not.

And I'm not sure it sounds all that good on paper, when you think about it. What would it be like if Michael Bloomberg were president? More of the same. Stay the course.

[Lerkfish]

39. cool, a misguided purity purge!

the person was discussing what might happen, analyzing possibilities. That's a long way from advocating a third party.

[Perry Logan]

17. Thanks for the post. I had no idea there were two sides to every story.

[sampsonblk]

18. Same type of shit they put out when they funded the 'war'

All bullshit.

[rpannier]

19. Sorry...His explanation is garbage

Giving this administration 6 more months is like giving an arsonist 6 more months to play with matches and gasoline before you take it away from him.

6 months from now the same group will be arguing to give the wire tapping 6 more months.

This is an issue oriented argument, not a Party argument.

[bread_and_roses]

20. There is no defense. Only self-serving excuses. (n/t)

[dionysus]

22. JCWilmore is a fucking idiot.

n/t

[hijinx87]

24. I don't see why so many people are surprised

we took control of congress by electing a great many
people that are not particularly progressive.

having control is better than not having control, but
we have to expect this sort of thing to happen from
time to time.

whatever else webb is, he isn't the last guy that had
this seat (who's name mercifully escapes me at the moment)

[ProudDad]

25. This IS a BULLSHIT fallacy

"These members, Senators Feinstein, Mikulski, Bayh, and Bill Nelson, have extensive experience on intelligence matters and are respected champions of civil rights and liberties."

DiFi and Nelson champions of civil rights and liberties is a fucking joke!!!!

It's TOTAL BULLSHIT when it comes to the corporate capitalist masters and the military industrial complex...

I KNOW DiFi the Dino, I've watched her repuke-lite act since she inherited San Francisco's Mayor's seat after a right-wing nutjob killed the GREAT Liberal Mayor Muscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. She was one of the right-wingers on the City Council at that time...

Her hubby is minting money from the war...She's the best friend the fucking war machine has...


This is a cowardly cop-out from Webb THE "ex-" REPUBLICAN!!!! Don't forget that...


In case you haven't seen it lately here's a list of the cowardly Dems in the Senate:

Bayh (D-IN) - Traitor
Carper (D-DE) - Traitor
Casey (D-PA) - Traitor
Conrad (D-ND) - Traitor
Feinstein (D-CA) - Traitor
Inouye (D-HI) - Traitor
Klobuchar (D-MN) - Traitor
Landrieu (D-LA) - Traitor
Lincoln (D-AR) - Traitor
McCaskill (D-MO) - Traitor
Mikulski (D-MD) - Traitor
Nelson (D-FL) - Traitor
Nelson (D-NE) - Traitor
Pryor (D-AR) - Traitor
Salazar (D-CO) - Traitor
Webb (D-VA) - Traitor

Along with lie-berman (fucking batshit crazy shitbag - CT) - Traitor to the U.S., FOZ...

And those not voting (just as fucking guilty):
Boxer (D-CA allowed to abstain?) - Traitor
Dorgan (D-ND) - Traitor
Harkin (D-IA) - Traitor
Johnson (D-SD - comotose-dino - the only one with a good excuse)
Kerry (D-MA) - Traitor
Murray (D-WA) - Traitor


On Edit: At this point I don't trust the dems to protect our civil liberties... They've demonstrated that they are too cowardly and too concerned with their own fucking jobs to stop the shredding of the Bill of Rights... It's not going to end with another corporate owned Dem in the WH either.

My only hope is to survive the death throes of the latest fucked up empire...the U.S. Corporate Empire

[Honeycombe8]

29. This is such a load of BS. Call it "trying to save the Dem Party"

This may cost them some votes.

While this tripe sounds good on the surface, it is BS. "Protect the privacy rights of Americans"? How is that possible without subpoenas? How is that possible without oversight by someone not connected with the W.H.?

Furthermore, I heard a pundit on TV say that this bill was VERY different from prior changes in that it CODIFIED the changes, making them CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES. That is a VERY big deal.

It probably won't affect me, since I don't make calls overseas. But if the Dems in Congress think the administration is not going to tap their phones when they call overseas...or tap the phones of companies or people who make large contributions to them...then they have learned nothing during the last 7 years.

They fell for the W.H. line....again.

[stillrockin]

30. bullshit

:thumbsdown:

[eridani]

31. So, if our basic problem with intelligence about terrorists--

--is finding the right needles in the haystack, the obvious solution is to pile on orders of magnitude more hay! :sarcasm:

We had all the goddam intelligence we needed to prevent 9/11--our "leaders" refused to put it together, and even blocked FISA requests that would have been productive.

[Usrename]

35. What a bunch of whiny-assed drivel.

Gee Senator Webb, that's one good way to take a massive dump on the graves of everyone who ever died for this country.

And now you want to whine about it. What a jerk. What a totally useless tool you turned out to be.

[Major Hogwash]

36. Outstanding post. This is worth a bookmark.

Somebody else figured it out, too!

It has to be fixed and it has to be fixed by the Democrats.
Excellent analysis.

[OzarkDem]

48. Would have been better

if Dems hadn't let it get broken in the first place. Its much harder to fix after its been so badly abused.

[Lerkfish]

38. so, the justification is that writing a bad law in the hopes of writing a better law later?

um, ok.

:crazy:

that's not a defense, its a rationalization retroactively excusing behaviour already undertaken.

[Elidor]

41. Normally I get the right-wing talking points from the GOP, rather than my own party

"Predictably Webb has come under fire from that part of the Democratic Party that thinks everything should be done perfectly, on the first try, and without expending any real effort."
strawman

Point 1: strawman and cop out. Weasel words that make groundless assertions.
Point 2: false - FISA has been updated many times since its creation, including as recently as last year
Point 3: in the context of "sloppiness and a total disregard for the rule of law on the part of the Republicans," how will this law change any of that? It's not even relevant to the excuses being made.
Point 4: does not stand to reason.
Point 5: hey, they're already making excuses for next time!

This is some incredible bullshit.

[suigeneris]

42. Wow! Is there a real Democrat left in this place?

What's happened to this place? Instead of this vicious trashing of the party and our legislators, complete with oh-boy-let's-pile-on amen chorus, how about some party loyalty, support and solidarity? This shitty FISA revision isn't the end of the world. Let's see to it that it's fixed by finding ways to outsmart Bush and beat the shit out of his Republic party midgets in congress instead of mercilously pounding on our guys.

And all due respect, anybody that produces a long list of Democratic "traitors" needs his mouth washed out with soap, his ass kicked and a long session in time out to consider the question of whether he's a Democrat any longer. Do some of you people draw the line anywhere in your hatred of our own? There are constructive ways to object and there are abusive ones.

I don't post much here but by god this party, my party, is the best and only real hope the country has to restore American virtue. I believe that and never forget it. You cavalier fuckers whose shtick is endless Democrat-bashing are part of the problem, not the solution.

My $.02.

[Elidor]

43. Yeah, how dare we criticize our elected representatives for being sellouts and fools!

:eyes:

[rhett o rick]

44. Wrong. When we trash those that support the Fuhrer we aren't trashing Democrats. Anyone, i say

anyone that supports George W. Bush is not a Democrat. If you don't support the Constitution, in my book you are not a Democrat. Gonzales will use this power that has no oversight to spy on his enemies and i don't mean terrorists. This is about winning the 2008 elections. Webb is full of shit.

[OzarkDem]

49. Real democrats

have a long history of telling their elected representatives what they want. The party has always been a grassroots-style organization.

Dem leaders in DC are under attack because this wasn't just some minor bill giving someone a political favor or corporate tax break. It was a very serious undermining of our Constitutional rights, an action that will, without doubt be used against the party and its candidates.

When Sen. Sam Ervin laid the groundwork for the FISA bill, he did so knowing full well that if the government ever got heavily into the business of spying on its own citizens, one of the first abuses would be to spy on elected officials and others for the purpose of blackmailing and political gain.

The gutting of FISA provides a tool to our political opponents to unfairly influence the political process and elections. Dems who voted for this change actually handed Bush and the GOP a very powerful tool to use against them. That just makes no sense at all and grassroots Dems have the future of our party and political leverage in mind when we criticize them so harshly. It was a stupid, destructive mistake that will make it much harder for Dems to win.

[rhett o rick]

45. Why oh why didn't they include some oversight? Why i ask? nm