How bi-partisan is the uproar?

May 12, 2006

It’s not unusual for progressive activists to express frustration when it seems congressional Dems aren’t responding with appropriate [tag]outrage[/tag] to the latest Bush scandal. When it comes to the administration collecting [tag]records[/tag] of our [tag]domestic[/tag] [tag]phone calls[/tag], this isn’t the case; Dems on the Hill issued sweeping condemnations yesterday and demanded answers.

But what about the GOP? When I was reading the USA Today story yesterday, the very first thought that popped into my mind was, “I wonder how congressional Republicans will rationalize this one.” So far, at least, there’s a bit of a split.

On the one hand, we have a handful of [tag]Republicans[/tag] who, at least on the surface, believe the president may have pushed the envelope a little too far on this one.

Senator [tag]Arlen Specter[/tag], the Pennsylvania Republican who heads the Judiciary Committee, said the reported data-mining activities raised serious constitutional questions. He said he planned to seek the testimony of telephone company executives.

The House majority leader, John A. [tag]Boehner[/tag] of Ohio, said he wanted more information on the program because “I am not sure why it would be necessary to keep and have that kind of information.”

On the other hand, there’s the rest of the party. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), offering the same comments that he’s been repeating since Bush took office, said “calls for further oversight are unnecessary.” He described the secret database as “lawful and absolutely necessary to protect this nation from future attacks.” Sen. [tag]Trent Lott[/tag] (R-Miss.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, added, “Do we want security … or do we want to get in a twit about our civil libertarian rights?” Not to be outdone, Senate Majority Leader [tag]Bill Frist[/tag] (R-Tenn.) expressed opposition to Specter’s proposed hearings.

My personal favorite, though, came by way of Sen. [tag]Jon Kyl[/tag] (R-Ariz.).

Bush defenders on Capitol Hill confirmed that the National Security Agency began collecting records of landline and cell phone calls shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and condemned leaks on the project.

“This is [tag]nuts[/tag],” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). “We are in a war, and we have got to collect [tag]intelligence[/tag] on the enemy. And you can’t tell the enemy in advance how you’re going to do it.”

Notice his use of the phrase “the enemy.” Bush and the NSA want a massive database with logs of billions of domestic calls, made by law-abiding Americans, and Jon Kyl is talking about collecting intelligence on “the enemy,” as if all of us are potential suspects.

As Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) put it, “Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaida? If that’s the case, we’ve really failed in any kind of a war on terror.”

This is what I wrote in the “Don’t Worry” post from yesterday – it applies here as well:

Dems can yell all they want but the GOP controls the legislative aparatus, so really, until GOP congressmen/women (I’m speaking to you Specter!) say “enough!” and the follow thru, the goalposts will be moved yet again. And again those who never drank the Kool-Aid or those in recovery will just be left gnashing our teeth.

Of course all of those that continue to support the president and actually were naive enough to belive the claim that the NSA wasn’t tapping domestic calls should be worried. But many will continue to enable the GOP and the president.

  • I’m just curious – what would have to happen for Pat Robertson to finally believe that “calls for further oversight” actually ARE necessary?? What a waste of space.

    Call me Pollyanna, but I think we may be at a tipping point regarding just how much play these bastards can get out of the “if we don’t screw you out of your Constitutional rights, the terrorists win” mantra. Let’s hope congressional Democrats can find the wherewithal to hold their feet to the fire on this one.

  • Our response (our=left) should include pointing to the wimpiness of Americans who feel they personally need more protection than America, democracy, and civil liberties do. All these claims of patriotism amount to cowering when it comes to defending the Constitution.

  • “This is nuts,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). “We are in a war, and we have got to collect intelligence on the enemy. And you can’t tell the enemy in advance how you’re going to do it.”

    Ah… the perfect republican war.

    Because it will never end.
    Because they can justify any behavior they want to fight it.
    Because you can deplete the treasury and cut social services to fund it.

    That’s why it is important for them to keep Osama alive.
    He makes the incredible claims of war… passably credible.

    Osama’s continued existence keeps the sheep a baa-ing.
    Ergo, Osama must not be caught.

    For the Dems to have a chance in 2008 they need to hammer at two things:

    1) Global warming.

    2) The failure of Bush to capture Osama. The Dem presidential candidate must stress:

    You want a president who is going to succeed. You want a president who is going to get Osama. Bush and the Republicans get an F-minus. He and they failed. I will CAPTURE Osama!

    In other words, the dems need to turn this Osama thing on its heels. He is a chit to be played right back in their faces. Guarantee his capture.
    Hammer at that…
    And then hammer some more.

  • At a time when Bush’s trust level is at lowest popular ebb, he is asking for the most intimate access to our personal lives.
    Repubs are going to have a hard time putting lipstick on this pig.

  • What about King George’s appearance to address concerns a mere 4-6 hours after the news broke? When is the last time the WH responded this quickly? And W’s response to the news started with “September 11th” and ended with “we are at war”. It seems to me this is all setup for November’s election. If Dems demand an explanation Reps will hammer the soft on terror, we are at war rhetoric. We are going to be seeing many more comments like this over the next few months.

    Scared sheeple will run to the safety of the party who is strong on defense. That is the plan at least. It seems like this plan may not be the best for Reps as they are polling poorly on security and trustworthiness. We will see if Rove’s bread and butter play still works!

  • If we have put ourselves in a spot where in order to protect the Constitution, we have to destroy it, the terrorist have already won.

  • If it hasn’t been clear before, it should be now: There are no decent, well-intentioned, reasonable Republicans currently serving in Congress. When it comes to a party crisis, they quickly show their true colors. Don’t expect anything from “moderates” like Specter, Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Snow or a “maverick” like John McCain. When it comes to retaining Republican majorities, they’ll quickly fall in line.

    Let’s dispense with calls for bipartisanship and “cooperation” when it comes to bullshit like this. Republicans are only interested in gutting the Constitution and the country to meet their partisan interests. From here to the election, Democrats should be doing everything and anything to stop them.

  • Also:

    When it comes to the administration collecting records of our domestic phone calls, this isn’t the case; Dems on the Hill issued sweeping condemnations yesterday and demanded answers.

    Well, sort of … Sen. Joe Biden was on NPR this morning saying how Gen. Michael Hayden was a “good” man and “independent” but the current scandal was going to make his confirmation “tougher.” As if any Democratic Senator should even be entertaining the idea that this nomination is even the tiniest bit acceptable.

  • Leahy’s quote reminded me of another famous quote:

    Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) , “Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaida? If that’s the case, we’ve really failed in any kind of a war on terror.”

    Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

  • Whenever I read or hear the expression “We are at war” I want to puke. *We* were attacked on 9/11 (and I’m not altogether convinced that it was not without the passive or active support of the Bush Crime Family). Since when does one attack constitute a “war”?

    Based on the fear the Bush Crime Family brought down on all of us, the GOP has justified an unprovoked attack on the nation which Rumsfeld early supplied with poison gas to use on “his” Kurds, revocation of virtually all our Constitutional rights, endless insults to the world’s 1 billion + Muslims, hatred of virtually all other nations, bankrupting future generations of Americans, etc., etc.

    I don’t care to hear Specter and the other weasely Repugnants’ empty complaints at this point. I want to vanquish them this November and then begin the extraordinarily delicious process of exacting vengence … on them and the elected so-called Democrats who greased their path toward our national disgrace and impotence. The only thing bi-partisan about politics at the moment is the need for all incumbents to keep sucking on the whatever federal tit the GOP offers. To hell with them all and their “war”.

  • Followup to 13: Ed

    I am not convinced we are in a “war on terrorism” either. In a war you find and destroy the enemy, and then it’s over. I think the whole thing is a cover for grabbing power and ensuring that the grabbers remain in power, in perpetuity.

  • There are any number of reasons to upset about this program. However, it seems to me that reading Kyl in this way is to deliberately misconstrue his argument. When you are collecting intelligence on terrorists and their connections, you are digging through other people. In this sense, regular Americans are not the enemy, we are just the hills, valleys, rocks and trees amongst which terrorists hide themselves and their communications. I suspect Joe-schmoe American hears his words and parses them this way. It strikes me that in looking at those who howl at his words must look like they are trying awfully hard to find something to be upset about. This is a shame, because we shouldn’t have to try hard. There are plenty of reasons to be upset about this without misreading anyone’s words.

    • Comments are closed.