TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Today's Must Read

OK, things were said. Patriotism was impugned, fear was mongered, attack ads were run. But that doesn't mean we can't work something out, does it?

The administration is ready to talk turkey, reports The Wall Street Journal. But if the administration "has signaled to Democratic lawmakers it is open to negotiation" about the surveillance bill, it's not entirely clear just yet where the administration is willing to give.

The centerpiece of negotiations, of course, will be whether telecoms will receive retroactive immunity for their participation in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Though a number of Senate Dems crossed over to support that, the House has managed to hold firm, twice passing a bill without retroactive immunity. Some Dems are floating "a pared-back version of immunity," such as limiting immunity to certain aspects of the program or capping possible damages. Talks about other aspects of the legislation, for instance concerning judicial oversight of surveillance, might come more easily.

But the reason for the White House's new tack is pretty clear: they used every weapon at their disposal -- presidential statements and press conferences, alarming letters and public appearances by the director of national intelligence and attorney general, time pressures created by the lapsing of legislation or a Congressional recess -- and none of it worked. The House, after all that, still passed a bill a world away from what the administration was pushing for. It was, as the Journal points out, a strikingly different outcome from August, when the White House's squeeze play worked to perfection.

The difference? Well, a number of things. But one thing in particular is the fact that Dems no longer trust the administration's point man, DNI Mike McConnell. From today's Los Angeles Times:

On the eve of a House vote on controversial wiretapping legislation last month, the nation's intelligence director, J. Michael McConnell, convened a secret weekend meeting in northern Virginia with members of the House Intelligence Committee.

The two-day session was designed to promote a calmer atmosphere for discussing an array of intelligence issues, including the nation's eavesdropping laws. But participants said the event ended with a series of acrimonious exchanges.

Democrats accused McConnell of making exaggerated claims and of doing the bidding of the Bush administration, according to officials who attended the event. McConnell bristled at the Democrats' charges, and chastised members of the committee for failing to defend the intelligence community amid a barrage of bad press.

As a wise man once said, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."


33 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Before granting immunity to the telecoms, Congress should find out exactly what agreements the telecoms have with the Bush Administration and what immunity they already have.

It is hard to believe that the legal staffs of the telecome didn't get an agreement that the government would pay for any lawsuits against the telecoms for any government activity that was later designated as illegal.

The telecoms have been doing legal wiretaps for many years and their legal departments would try to protect them as much as possible.

user-pic

I disagree with the premise of your statement. Why should Congress consider immunity for the telecoms at all, especially given your acknowledgement that there may already be immunity available to them?

user-pic
As a wise man once said, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

All snarky comments aside, this is a false statement. How dare TPMMuckraker impugn that this quote was made by a wise man.

Wise man???


Please. You make me wretch just at the thought of some one even joking that such a thing is true.

Please don't even make a joke of that. You besmirch the entire company of humanity with even a sarcastic reference to that man having a scintilla of wisdom.


Please apologize.

user-pic

Oh, I'll give Paul a pass, especially considering the date of the post. ;)

user-pic

As for a more rational comment.

Congress should not grant immunity - period.

Bush is pushing so desparately to have the telecoms immunized because if they are, there is no leverage for the next administration and a non-politicized DoJ to force the telecoms to spill the beans as to exactly what they did, why they did it, and who authorized them to do it.


NO TELECOM IMMUNITY!

user-pic

Not to worry. "In the best interests of the country" the Democrats will cave in. If history follows its usual pattern, a few congressional members "may" learn what really was going on, but they too will not want the American people to know and will sell out on grounds of "national security."

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Open to negotiation? Lookit, Bush's negotiation style adheres to a very specific set of rules:

1. It's my game
2. It's my ball.
3. I can bully you all I want.
4. I always win.
5. If you don't let me win, I'll take my ball and go
home until you wanna play again.

-AF

Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud

How much time, do you think, has the administration spent on lobbying for telecoms? Or telecom immunity? How many speeches and press conferences and editorials were used to create fear? How much time have the Republicans spent trying to railroad
immunity through? How many ads were created? How much money was spent on the administration's entire PR effort?

Anyone able to quantify this?

Slightly off topic, but it'd sure be nice if the new Prez. asked for the Directors of the FBI, CIA and DNI to resign. On their failure to do so, to then go public with his lack of confidence in their abilities to perform their tasks, based on past performance.

Bush is the new Maliki.

user-pic

Aside from starting a war with Iran, this is probably the biggest item left of the Cheney/Bush to-do list.

They don't care at all about the telecom industry. What they do care about are lawsuits against the telecom industry in which said industry offers testimony as to who in the administration said it was okay to violate the constitution.

My guess is that this is all about protecting one man, Dick Cheney. We may as well call it this bill the Cheney Immunity Act.

Desperate measures from GWB & Co- actually saying they'll "negotiate." Wonder how "negotiating" is being defined for McConnell this week.

The WH desperation to get this shoved through Congress indicates it's not really about telco immunity, but what might come out about them re: extent of wiretapping us citizens & what was done w/the info in any subsequent lawsuits.

Whenever BushCo pushes this hard for something, it's always about covering their own asses.

Everything this admin has done is primarily to protect them from future repercussions of their (at best) highly questionable activities. Cheney's office has classified more documents during the last 8 years than any other VP in history. Quite an achievement.

user-pic

Congress will cave. With leaders like Reid and Pelosi what can you expect? That's why we need new Senators and Representatives, to replace these muddled, scared-of-it-all, unprincipled seasoned compromisers. I, for one, am sick of their cowardice.

user-pic

I hope Congress holds their ground. When Bush offers to compromise, that ALWAYS means he is still planning on getting what is wanted to begin with. NO IMMUNITY. If necessary, Congress can hold out until after the election. These are our Constitutional Rights at stake. This is the time to rachet up the pressure even further so that Congress doesn't find some way to take cover and cave.

Johann #1 said, "Before granting immunity to the telecoms, Congress should find out exactly what agreements the telecoms have with the Bush Administration"

That's exactly what the Shrubbery does not want anyone to find out.

There is no danger of anyone at the telecoms going to jail or suffering financial penalties. In fact, the Shrubbery would throw them under the bus too if they could.

The telecoms are quite capable of defending themselves from any wrong-doing. All they have to do is spill the beans.

user-pic

April Fools! They aren't willing to negotiate. This is like Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football when she promises she won't pull it away THIS time. I'm sure them Dems will be so please to negotiate how hard the Rupukes are going to kick them in the teeth. Yea, great idea..

user-pic

"pleased" darn spellcheck.

Hard to believe the telephone companies cannot convince Schumer and Feinstein to back immunity. . . Maybe Mukassey (and some $ from Wall Street lobbyists) can show those 2 their patriotic duty? . . . It worked before.

This is just another bait and switch.

Bush's statements to the press indicating a willingness to compromise are the bait. If the press reports that the Democrats have taken the bait, Bush switches to his my-way-or-the-highway style and accuses the Democrats of flip-flopping to score political points. It has happened before and it will happen on the FISA bill too. The only way to deal with Bush is to get him the word that he must propose a responsible bill. Then, there is only the matter of dealing with the Senate GOPpers and the Democrats like Rockefeller who are more interested in placating Bush than defending civil liberties.

This is just another bait and switch.

Bush's statements to the press indicating a willingness to compromise are the bait. If the press reports that the Democrats have taken the bait, Bush switches to his my-way-or-the-highway style and accuses the Democrats of flip-flopping to score political points. It has happened before and it will happen on the FISA bill too. The only way to deal with Bush is to get him the word that he must propose a responsible bill. Then, there is only the matter of dealing with the Senate GOPpers and the Democrats like Rockefeller who are more interested in placating Bush than defending civil liberties.

This is just another bait and switch.

Bush's statements to the press indicating a willingness to compromise are the bait. If the press reports that the Democrats have taken the bait, Bush switches to his my-way-or-the-highway style and accuses the Democrats of flip-flopping to score political points. It has happened before and it will happen on the FISA bill too. The only way to deal with Bush is to get him the word that he must propose a responsible bill. Then, there is only the matter of dealing with the Senate GOPpers and the Democrats like Rockefeller who are more interested in placating Bush than defending civil liberties.

user-pic

Here's a great compromise:

Bush signs the House bill.

That would mean he went against the wishes of one house of congress, and he's not going to get better than that.

user-pic

This is Bush trying to cover his behind on all his illegal activities. He is also trying to get the issue revived so Sen. Dorf McCain will have a political bat to beat Democratic leaders with in the fall.

Instead of staying out of the elections, Bush is going to actively attempt to manipulate events to put McCain in the best position possible. If Dorf McCain in president, then Bush has his get out of jail(or even investigation) free card.

The portion of the Senate-passed FISA bill that Bush is pushing to immunize telecom companies is like a condom.

In the end, it's all about PROTECTION, is it not?

user-pic

I predict if the House cedes Bush any ground on this issue Bush will take all his concession back in a signing statement and say, "April Fools!"

At this point I can't help but wonder-- what happens if we just keep up the gridlock for eight more months, then pass a Pelosi-endorsed FISA when the new President is inaugurated in January? It seems like this standoff has been going on a six or seven months already, that implies it could continue six or seven months more.

the answer is obvious to the question 'what is the administration willing to give up'?

it will give up attacking democrats for not giving it what it wants -- 'if you do what we want we wont call you names anymore' has worked for W in the past - why would this situation be any different.

and the next question at the press conference goes to 'stretch'...

I'm not sure why congress doesn't wait W out? Just let the lame duck roost and then go back in and pick through what actually happened post W-era.

I agree that W needs to whatever he can to get McCain elected. If not the democrat dredges will be pulling up bodies from everywhere. That brings up an interesting question: Can a president pardon himself? Bush might want to try that one out as he leaves office.

So the real choice is:

Do we want to get screwed behind door #1, door #2 or door #3 ???

user-pic

He already granted the entire Bin Laden family immunity, including Osama, so why not AT&T? I mean, it's a nice, American company, turns a profit, pays its CEO good bonuses, and spies on your granny, who, after all, really does act suspicious. I mean, what's she really hiding under that knitted Kleenex box cover? And why does she smell like prunes and rubbing alcohol and spend so much time in the basement? She gave up making jams and jellies years ago.

We can't be, too careful.

As for McConnell, he really likes Congress. But the last Congress he hooked up with was always belittling him, just like his mother, before she disappeared that night he was drunk and couldn't remember anything. He can't open up like he used to so he puts up defenses, like the 16' border fence, around his bathroom.

I've heard him in there weeping after some serious subcommittee questions. Next time, just hug him. He'll tell you everything then, except that night when his Mom disappeared. She really was a wench, but you didn't hear that from me. Baloney and Miracle Whip sandwiches. On white bread from the day old rack. And she never helped with his chemistry homework or told him about girls.

At issue is not just the retroactive immunity.

This FISA law has to be the one and only controlling law but the Bush Administration wasn’t even willing to agree to that!

Unless FISA is the exclusive controlling law, it’s practically irrelevant, because the Bush Administration will just invent some other authority to get around FISA whenever they like.

user-pic
...the administration "has signaled to Democratic lawmakers it is open to negotiation"....

Hey, they must be sincere since they didn't call them the "Democrat lawmakers."

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address