Republican Breaks Rank on NSA Issue

Upcoming Congressional elections can be beneficial. The Republican chairwoman of the House subcommittee that oversees the NSA is calling for a full Congressional investigation into the Bush administration’s intelligence gathering program.

Representative Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico, chairwoman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, said in an interview that she had "serious concerns" about the surveillance program. By withholding information about its operations from many lawmakers, she said, the administration has deepened her apprehension about whom the agency is monitoring and why.

Given Bush’s ratings over several months, I suspect we will see more Republicans breaking ranks. How can they justify it to their constituents if they do not? Never will all of them bail out, but I foresee a steady trickle that hopefully will lead to a substantial group run.

Technorati Tags : NSA, surveillance, FISA, wiretapping, George+Bush, Heather+Wilson, politics

—–

Inherent Power

George Washington law professor Orin Kerr, at t:he Volokh Conspiracy, says Andrew Gonzales, in his testimony, was “mixing up two different kinds of claims concerning the [president’s] ‘inherent’ authority’ to conduct surveillance.” He writes:

    The first kind of inherent authority is inherent in the sense that Congress does not need to create it for it to exist; the power exists even before Congress grants it. The second kind of inherent authority is inherent in the sense that Congress cannot extinguish it; the power exists even after Congress tries to take it away. It is true that there are a number of past precedents on the first type of inherent authority, but there is very little on the second type. My understanding is that Gonzales is using ‘inherent authority’ in the second sense, but I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to cite precedents on the first type of inherent authority to support a claim of the second type of inherent authority.

    … I don’t think anyone has argued that the executive branch’s inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches and obtain warrants before the Espionage Act of 1917 means that Congress lacks the power to impose restrictions on the warrant process and domestic searches and seizures. Inherent authority absent statutory authorization is different from inherent authority in the face of statutory prohibition.

—–

Question of the Day

Tom Friedman of The New York Times asks, “Why does Mr. Cheney have no problem influencing the market by lowering taxes to get consumers to spend, but he rejects raising gasoline taxes to get consumers to save energy — a fundamental national interest.”

Technorati Tags : Tom+Friedman, Dick+Cheney, oil, politics

—–

Has Bush Made Teorrism Worse

“The fundamental political question facing Washington is whether or not President Bush’s policies have made terrorism worse, by failing to deliver a knockout blow to al Qaeda when he had the chance, and by subsequently deepening the antagonism toward the United States within the Sunni Arab world with his handling of Iraq. It is becoming painfully clear that the number of young Muslims willing to strap on explosives is growing faster than the United States and its allies to capture them. It sometimes seems as if the Bush administration is fighting the birthrate of the entire Arab world.”

—Risen James, (2006). State of War – The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, Free Press

—–

Coretta Scott King - Celebration of Life

Jeralyn at TalkLeft has a post about Coretta Scott King’s funeral today and the “indignant” positions the Republicans endured. I responded on her site, but want to include her post and my response as regular post. As to be expected, there were right-wing commenters, absent a cerebrum, and  left only to mono-syllable, four-letter word responses.

Jeralyn’s Post:

The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King’s Funeral

Rev. Joseph Lowery gave an impassioned eulogy at Coretta Scott’s funeral today. You can watch it here.

Four U.S. presidents were in attendance at the funeral, including President Bush. Among Reverand Lowery’s statements was this one, which was greeted with thunderous applause and a standing ovation:

We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. [Standing Ovation] But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor.

Former President Jimmy Carter spoke as well. He mentioned that Martin Luther King, Jr. had been the subject of wiretapping in the name of national security. (At the behest of J. Edger Hoover, who thought one of King’s associates was a communist sympathizer, then Attorney General Bobby Kennedy signed an order allowing King’s phones to be tapped. Years later it was revealed that Hoover had been bugging King’s hotel rooms and more — without Kennedy’s or any court approval.)

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin spoke after President Bush.

[She] describ[ed] how Coretta Scott King spoke out against "the senselessness of war" with a voice that was heard "from the tintop roofs of Soweto to the bomb shelters of Baghdad."

Tonight, right wingers are blasting the speakers at Corretta Scott King’s funeral for insulting Bush and making comparisons to Paul Wellstone’s funeral. (If you must read them, Seeing the Forest has a round-up.) They are charging that the Democrats shamelessly politicized the funeral and went out of their way to insult Bush.

This is all nonsense. The tributes were appropriate. They were on topics not only relevant, but central to the lives and work of Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King, Jr. I’m wondering why Bush was granted speaking privileges to begin with? Their lives have nothing in common and I doubt they were close friends.

Rather than read the silly attacks by the right, read John at Americablog:

How dare a black man not know his place at a funeral, they’ll say. As if the Republican party and its surrogates have any right whatsoever to speak on behalf of Mrs. King, to tell black America what they can and cannot do to honor one of their most revered leaders.

And Digby and Is that Legal, and others who put the lie to this right-wing attempt to change the subject from commemorating the life of a great woman and her husband to fabricated insults.

Why was President Bush even there? Was it because Clinton and Jimmy Carter were going? As late as last Friday, Bush’s staff said he planned to speak in New Hampshire today. Then, Saturday, they announced his change of plans.

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said in an e-mail message on Saturday that the change had been made because "the funeral arrangements were only very recently finalized" and the White House had not been ready to make an announcement until then. Mr. McClellan said "the president and Mrs. Bush are honored to be attending."

But Bishop Eddie Long, who will be officiating at the funeral services at the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, said in a telephone interview on Saturday that he had initially heard from the King family that Mr. Bush would not be attending and that he planned to send Mrs. Bush and his father, the former president, instead. Mr. Long said he found out only on Saturday morning that Mr. Bush would be present after all…..The president, he said, made the right decision. "I’m sure that somebody gave him some counsel," he said.

President Bush’s poll numbers among African-Americans was minimal to begin with and sank lower after Katrina. Did he view this event as an opportunity to honor Mrs. King or to shore up Republican support among blacks?

The remarks made about weapons of mass destruction and wiretapping would have been made by the speakers honoring Mrs. King if Bush had not been there. Why should anyone have had to alter the content of their planned remarks just because Bush decided to attend? The service was to honor Mrs. King and her life, not Bush. If President Bush’s toes got stepped on during the course of it, maybe he should rethink his policies and get in touch with the views of the ten thousand others who paid tribute to Mrs King in Atlanta — as well as millions more watching the news coverage of the funeral tonight at home.

My rather quick response, typo’s, grammatical errors and all

Posted by dpleasant
February 7, 2006 10:16 PM CST

I think the pertinet [sic] question is what did Mrs. King’s family want and how did they receive it. Nothing else matters.

A funeral, IMHO, is for the living and it’s purpose is the celebration of life, in this case Mrs King; whatever form the family wishes that take, then those are the ground rules. If others are/were offended, then don’t go or leave.

If Dubya had half a brain he would have known how to manage the situation rather than let Karl Rove and his lieutenants run off swift-boating as so aptly put Jeralyn. Did you notice how Clinton so easily brought the swell within a certain level in just seconds. He went straight to the salient point, "there is a woman in that casket…" and there was an immediate peace in the valley.

If one can’t take a look at him/herself through the eyes of others, they have no business being in political office. It is a prerequisite. So any offended politician should have the inherent ability to place that "offense" where it should be, or capitalize upon to his/her advantage on the spot.

It’s improper to look at it this way I suppose, but how many points could Dubya have scored politically if he had risen to the occasion - he had an overwhelming force before him that he could have utilized respectfully, intelligently and to the betterment of Mrs.King’s agenda, his agenda, his party’s agenda, and the agenda of the American people.

I suggest let’s NOT do what the GOP would like us to do - fall into their trap of spin rhetoric that serves only their agenda, which is not Coretta Scott King’s, not her children’s (presumption on my part), and definitely not her husband;s. We can easily fall prey to there trap (Rove is too good at these things) and let this get out of control and to their advantage.

Stand firm, tell the swift-boaters to stick it in their ear as appropriate, and let Mrs. King’s final mortal event be a celebration of who she_is_today through her legacy. If her children were offended, then that too should be addressed.

I just buried my father, and I can assure you the family’s desire is to carry out the wish(es) Mrs. King sought as well as the mortal aspects of what the family needs as their mother passed beyond their grasp - a rude awakening no matter how long they anticipated her passing.

Technorati Tags : Coretta+Scott+King, funeral, George+Bush, Republicans, politics, Martin+Luther+King, Bill+Clinton

—–