« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
TOP SECRET
The House is expected to finally vote on the leadership's surveillance bill this afternoon and debate is ongoing now. We'll keep you updated on how it goes.
The reason the vote was delayed, of course, was the extremely rare secret session requested by Republicans (only the fifth since 1825).
It's unclear exactly what went on. For one thing, it appears from comments Republicans made going into the session that they didn't actually discuss the details of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) tells the AP that he had read aloud the titles — but not details — of intelligence reports "that shows the nature of the global threat and how dynamic the situation is, and how fluid."
Democrats are as dismissive afterwards as they were skeptical going in. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) dismissed it as "mysterious hocus-pocus" on the House floor this morning. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said that he didn't "hear any new information" that dissuades him from supporting the Dems' bill. (Meanwhile, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) said in a statement that he was satisfied with the session and “As members go home, I hope the information and debate we heard will help inform their decisions when we consider the legislation that will be before the House tomorrow.")
Dana Milbank writing in The Washington Post can hardly restrain his mockery of the whole thing -- and has a hard time deciding whether the debate to go into closed session was sillier than the closed session itself.
But if it was a PR stunt, I have to say that the secret session seems to have fallen far short of the GOP's staged walkout in garnering publicity.





Comments (5)
maybe The Honorable Mr. Blunt read off a few cryptic references to some of the little tidbits found with the NSA real-time data-mining operations. Gotta make those uppity democRATs know that Little Georgie has their number...
Yup. I guess I am paranoid.
March 14, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
House GOP is not looking for the PR payoff now, they're locking in ammo for upcoming campaign runs.
They're hoping they can say something like "Democrats are ignoring the threats. These threats are so vile and grave we had to call a secret session to even discuss them, and Democrats still made us weaker. Vote for me and I'll protect you..."
Same goes for the sudden change of heart on earmarks in the Senate. GOP Senators don't want earmarks go away, they just want to be able to say that Democrats voted to keep them in a few weeks.
It'll all work too if Dems don't plan ahead and formulate answers for these shots. I'm hoping they will, but my experience tells me otherwise...
March 14, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if it was a PR stunt, I have to say that the secret session seems to have fallen far short of the GOP's staged walkout in garnering publicity.
I'm shocked that they didn't get any publicity from a session in which they kicked the public out and turned off all the cameras.
Maybe the next time they want PR they'll remember to leave the cameras on.
March 14, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got it exactly. If the Democrats had denied the closed session, they'd claim:
"We Republicans know all these scary secrets and want to protect you, but the Democrats aren't even willing to hear us out. Therefore we're justified in our obstructionist tactics."
Pelosi was right to call their bluff and then hold the vote. Dems are doing a good job of ridiculing the bogus Republican presentation as a lot of scare tactics. I mean the Republicans read the titles of some reports? The same reports a majority of Democrats with clearances have also read? What a joke.
Good job Pelosi and Democrats. They got this one right.
March 14, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds like this was an intended sham. Call for a double secret session, divulge nothing new, claim you did, (how can you prove the R's did not share secret intel), then claim the D'd ignored what you said that would save American lives. IF there is a serious attack here or elsewhere, the R's have more fodder. We need to remember: who protects us from those we surrender our rights to.
Why are they more moral/honest than AQ.
March 16, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink