Democrats don't like the Congress because the Congress does things like this:
The Senate bowed to White House pressure last night and passed a Republican plan for overhauling the federal government's terrorist surveillance laws, approving changes that would temporarily give U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court orderThe LA Times sees it this way:
Bowing to pressure from the most unpopular White House since Nixon's last days.Bowing to pressure from the Bush administration, the Senate passed emergency legislation Friday that would significantly expand the authority of U.S. spy agencies to monitor overseas phone calls and e-mails.
It also would remove requirements for court approval when those communications passed through the United States.
It's S.1927. So far all I can find is the vote numers 60-28. From the Washington Post:
Sixteen Democrats and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) joined all 43 Republicans in supporting the measure, which is nearly identical to a proposal prepared by the Bush administration. "We're at war. The enemy wants to attack us," Lieberman said during the Senate debate. "This is not the time to strive for legislative perfection." [emphasis added]Anyone know who those sixteen were? More from the Post:
But alas, all is not lost. From Talkingpointsmemo:Privacy advocates accused the Democrats of selling out and charged that this bill gives the government more authority than it had under a controversial warrantless wiretapping program begun in secret after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Under that program, the government could conduct surveillance without judicial oversight only if it had a reason to believe that one party to the call was a member of or affiliated with al-Qaeda or a related terrorist organization. This bill drops that condition, they noted.
Democrats "have a Pavlovian reaction: Whenever the president says the word 'terrorism,' they roll over and play dead," said Caroline Fredrickson, Washington legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Harry Reid emphasized that yesterday's measure is temporary, and that the Senate will revisit the issue in six months. That's not exactly reassuring. For one thing, Dems will be just as fearful in February as they are now. For another, that's six months of the administration having largely unchecked surveillance power.Weren't we supposed to "not worry" about the USAPatriot act because there were "sunset" provisions in it? What happened when the act was revisited?
That's right. Most of the "sunsetted" stuff remained - and was made permanent.
UPDATE: The bill passed the House 227-183 (Democrats cave again). How did the locals do with the yeas and nays?
Doyle - Nay
Murtha - Nay
Altmire - Yea
Murphy, Tim - Yea
Hmm. Congressman Altmire's got some explaining to do.
10 comments:
David is trying to explain why the Democrats suck. David is attempting to make excuses.
I think Halliburton's behind this, if you want my honest opinion.
Bwahahahaha!
FISA allowed spying without warrants but required formal filing of intelligence activities ex post facto. That seems like enough leeway but Bush Co. wouldn't even follow those provisions.
I understand all the angst over the Democrats recent voters and "apparent" capitulation. I also understand the game they are engaged in.
They are scared to death that the GOP narrative, which reads; Democrats are wussy doves, will be given creedence the next time terrorism strikes in the US. They are, I think, trying to walk a razors edge, in hopes that they can recover the WH and pick up more Congressional seats next year.
Think about it. As much as people now disapprove of Bush, the GOP still has a lot of people who believe in the party's basic precepts. People who believe the Dems are heathen, baby-killers. People who, given the right set of circumstances (including more terror attacks or other violence) will gladly run to Romney or Rudy or whomever.
No, the Dems may not be doing your bidding exactly the way you want it this very moment...but I do think it's the right long-term strategy. We have to get back into the White House and regain the ultimate power to chart a course back to sanity.
Piltdown Man
I agree with Piltdown. If you were watching any other recent legislation such as the Agriculture Budget for 2008, it was a different set of tactics. Any amendment that was introduced by an 'R' was put down in a landslide. They stood their ground for all the 'pork' and other projects they wanted in. But if anything negative happens from a terrorist perspective that can be pointed back to some type of bill or funding the Dems put down that if enacted could have circumvented such a tragedy, it would ruin their chances for the keys to the White House.
All of these people take an oath to defend the Constitution. That's defend, not destroy. I've had it with all of them.
Amazingly, my congressman, Mike "Hardly ever saw a chance to wimp out that I didn't love" Doyle, voted on the side of the angels this time. I'll send him a message congratulating for growing a pair.
Face it, you Democrats are all talk. You bad mouth Bush yet support his troop strength in Iraq. You vote to extend the FISA program. And then say those minority Republicans made you do it.
You Democrats don't dislike any of those ideas, you just don't like Bush. You lose.
Truth may come even from the mouths of trolls.
The reality of the FISA bill is that the Democrats know we may be in for another attack. They know, as well as Bush how these attacks are planned. The idea that they voted to extend FISA because of fear of being blamed is false. If there is no terrorist threat against the US and if the phone system is not being used to plan these attacks, why extend FISA. Why give the hated Attorney General the power the Democrats accused him of abusing. Because the Democrats, ie Rep. Altmire, know full well the Al Queda network is planning another attack. So they aren't trying to escape blame if an attack occurs, but are working to prevent anther attack. Their entire criticism centers around irrational hatred of Bush. If the Democrat majaority truly wanted to stop FISA, they could. If they wanted troops out of Iraq, that would have already started. But they don't. And that is the dirty secret they try to hide and the one Conservatives see right thru.
Speaking for my little self, I'm a registered Independent. I choose to support Democrats because of the two real options I have, they are the less sickening. Unlike you, anon, and many others on the right, who will parrot whatever talking points get disseminated through the right wing nutosphere without taking a nanosecond to actually consider what they mean and support 99% of what this disastrous president proposes for no other reason than he has an R after his name. Where do you think "ditto head" came from?
As for Altmire, who I gave money and time to in the last election, he is - to quote a famous fictional Italian - dead to me.
I was willing to give him another chance after that vote on the supplemental a few months back. But he, and the other Democratic cowards who caved on this bill, are worse than my 5 year old. At least he actually learns a lesson after a while. Too many Democrats still have not. They still let Republicans control the message. They still think Dumbya has some credibility with most of the American people. They still don't understand what the word "leadership" means.
Of course, this is what the GOP wants. They want to divide and conquer. Well, they are starting to succeed again. Thanks, Altmire, you f#@$!
Whigs,
Has Altmire done ANYTHING you like? Voting for the children's health bill, energy bill, minimum wage, stem cell research, medicare Rx, timeline in Iraq, increased fuding for college grants and loans....ANYTHING??? He also voted for the democratic alternative for the FISA bill, which failed. Do you give him credit for that? Perhaps you'd rather have Hart back?
Post a Comment