Archive for October 25th, 2007
Oct 25, 2007 at 7:12 PM by Political Chase
In a 265-142 vote, the House passed a revised version of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill today — the first revision since the president’s veto. Two Republicans voting for the bill last time, voted against the current version.
The changes as reported by Roll Call (sub. req.):
Democrats aimed to address Republican criticisms over the $35 billion measure intended to cover 10 million children via several last-minute “clarifications.”
Among those changes, Democrats agreed to rapidly phase out the inclusion of childless adults from the program within a one-year period. The bill also seeks to limit the program to low-income children by prohibiting participation by families with incomes within 300 percent of the federal poverty level. In addition, changes also aimed to strengthen prohibitions designed to prevent illegal immigrants from participating in the program by requiring the Social Security Administration to confirm a participant’s residency status.
Republicans criticized Democrats for "rushing the legislation to the House floor without allowing lawmakers to review the revised bill first."
But Nancy Pelosi "defended the decision to advance the legislation, asserting that the House must act expediently for the bill to reach the president’s desk before the end of the calendar year. "
‘We’re holding the vote today because it fits into our legislative calendar,’ Pelosi said."
I agree with the Republicans with respect to having sufficient time to review the bill. How can anyone vote on a bill they haven’t had time to review? But it happens all the time. My best guess is Pelosi did not want arguments; instead she probably intended to put Representatives on the spot with a roll call where a negative vote would likely be could be viewed negatively by constituents.
Oct 25, 2007 at 6:08 PM by Political Chase
The Democrats tipping point on confirming Mukasey:
Judge Michael Mukasey’s nomination for attorney general ran into trouble Thursday when two top Senate Democrats said their votes hinge on whether he will say on the record that an interrogation technique that simulates drowning is torture.
I know this is an extremely important issue, particularly with respect to how the country presents itself to the international community, but they’re willing to acquiesce on Arlen Specter’s issue regarding the president (this or any other) being above the rule of law? How can they possibly have a single point of demarcation? Is this the quid pro quo for letting Leahy and Specter review documents they are legally entitled to see anyway?
Oct 25, 2007 at 5:42 PM by Political Chase
Last night, Rudy Giuliani was asked in a Davenport, Iowa town-hall meeting if he considered waterboarding to be torture. This is his response.
Well, I’m not sure it is either. I’m not sure it is either. It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it. I think the way it’s been defined in the media, it shouldn’t be done. The way in which they have described it, particularly in the liberal media. So I would say, if that’s the description of it, then I can agree, that it shouldn’t be done. But I have to see what the real description of it is. Because I’ve learned something being in public life as long as I have. And I hate to shock anybody with this, but the newspapers don’t always describe it accurately.
An unbelievable answer.
This guy is a top tier GOP candidate for President of the United States and will not make a simple statement to repudiate torture of every kind instead of attempting to get into a linguist’s spin of words?
This put-off on the media is dodging at its best. The media has not twisted the fundamental aspect of waterboarding. And if it had described multiple methods of waterboarding, which may be true, the end result is the same. This is how the NYT described waterboarding in a January 13, 2005 article.
Among the procedures approved by the [August 2002 "torture memo"] was waterboarding, in which a subject is made to believe he might be drowned.
Does it really matter whether the interrogator has the individual in a backwards-reclining position pouring water over his face from a Bacharach crystal pitcher or has a fire hose shoved up his or her nose? The end result is the same.
Oct 25, 2007 at 4:32 PM by Political Chase
After a year of stonewalling and multiple subpoenas, The White House has said it will allow Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter, Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee respectively, access to the documents related to the Bush administration’s spying programs.
The Hill:
The White House will allow leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee to access documents on the Bush administration’s secret spying program, in an effort to win their support for retroactive legal protections covering the telecommunications firms that participated in the program, Democrats said Thursday.
Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and ranking member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) have demanded to see the documents before they consider a controversial foreign-intelligence surveillance bill that would grant the companies retroactive immunity. The White House has so far provided the documents only to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which last week approved a bill to overhaul the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by a 13-2 vote. The measure has been referred to Judiciary, but no date for a markup has been set yet.
A White House official told Leahy in a phone call Thursday morning that he and Specter could access the confidential documents that outline the involvement of the telecom firms. But according to an aide, the details on how the documents could be accessed have not been worked out. There also is no sign yet that the rest of the Judiciary Committee or Senate leadership may access the documents.
Telephone companies are facing about 40 lawsuits for providing private information to the government, and the Bush administration is trying to wipe away those suits by arguing that the companies acted in the interest of national security. But critics of the language say that if telephone companies and the Bush administration did nothing illegal, then they should not be absolved from litigation. For over a year, Democrats have clamored for the documents explaining why immunity would be needed, only to meet resistance from the White House.
This by no means the standoff is over. Other members of the Judiciary Committee are going to demand access to the information, or so they say, before casting a vote on the legislation Bush is demanding. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) has already said no documents, no vote.
I would like to know what happened before I absolve anyone from liability from the law. Naturally, I can’t cast an informed vote on FISA until I know the circumstances.
Furthermore, the administration has told lie after lie on this issue (and on virtually everything else), so my question is, how will Leahy, Specter and others know they will receive full disclosure? Unless they somehow force the Office of Legal Counsel to swear and affirm full disclosure Dick Cheney and David Addington may have a plethora of related items in Cheney’s safe.
Why didn’t Bush just do this a year ago?
Oct 25, 2007 at 1:42 PM by Political Chase
It is not an overstatement to say that Henry Waxman has tenaciously carried out his responsibilities as Chairman of House Committee on Oversight and Government reform. The Post has a rather robust piece on Waxman, the White House’s "worst nightmare."
So, how about Waxman’s predecessor? Zip. Tom Davis admits he didn’t do any oversight.
"For the administration, and for a lot of others, people need to be careful now," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), the ranking Republican on the committee. "Someone is looking over their shoulder."
With that record, Davis made a wise decision to not run for the Senate.
Oct 25, 2007 at 12:28 PM by Political Chase
I’ve heard a few comments made by the Washington Pundit Elite that the Senate is so pleased Alberto Gonzales is gone that they will readily confirm Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General in spite of controversial answers he gave in his confirmation hearing last week.
I’ll not dare question their collective infinite wisdom, but at least for now, some members of the Judiciary panel are pushing back or at least demanding clarification on Mukasey’s controversial responses.
Sen. Patrick Leahy and the remaining nine other Democrats on the panel sent a letter to Mukasey Tuesday pressing him on his twisted response regarding waterboarding. In the letter they said they found it "“surprising that you are unfamiliar with waterboarding since it has been the subject of much public discussion” and asserted that “your unwillingness to state that waterboarding is illegal may place Americans at risk of being subject to this abusive technique.”
Although Mukasey’s response in the hearing was little more than a semantic hedge, their was no ambiguity in the 10 Democrat’s redirect. In the letter they asked, “Please respond to the following question: Is the use of waterboarding, or inducing the misperception of drowning, as an interrogation technique illegal under U.S. law, including treaty obligations?”
The Committee’s Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) joined the Democrat’s by posing a few questions of his own in a letter sent to Mukasey yesterday. From my perspective, Specter addressed the most significant issue — the president’s claim of absolute power.
A question has been raised on your response to whether the President may legally authorize wiretaps which violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, when you stated: “That would have to depend on whether what goes on outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the President to defend the country.”
Would you please specify your views on the scope of the President’s Article II powers to disregard an explicit statutory requirement. If you believe the President can act outside the law, how do you square that belief with your statement at the hearing that “The President doesn’t stand above the law[?]” How do you deal with the public concern that the rule of law is supreme and the President at times appears to put himself above the law?
The panel simply must not allow Mukasey to slip by with semantic twists or ambiguous answers, however the White House is already posturing Mukasey for an ambiguous answer on the torture issue.
Mukasey contended last week he did not know what the interrogation techniques were because he had not been read into the program yet — an all too easy hedge for Mukasey. Yesterday, the White House reiterated Mukasey "has not been read into classified intelligence programs, and he won’t be read in until he is confirmed as attorney general."
Another Bush demand of give me what I want but I’m not going to provide you any detail information about what I want.
Oct 25, 2007 at 10:48 AM by Political Chase
I continue to get the impression that Gates and Bush (better said Cheney) disagree on multiple fronts and Gates is usually the loser. Also, I’ve noticed on several occasions that Gates is apparently left out of the loop on discussions/decisions he should be involved in. Why else would Gates make a significant policy statement to only be overturned by the Decider publicly within hours?
Hours after Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested a possible delay of a missile defense system in Europe, President Bush said Tuesday he plans to move ahead — hopefully with the help of an objecting Russia.
"The need for missile defense in Europe is real, and I believe it is urgent," Bush said during a speech at National Defense University devoted mainly to his planned project in Poland and the Czech Republic.
After a meeting earlier in the day in Prague, Gates said there could be a delay in deployment until the U.S. determines when Iran and other rogue nations are verifiably compliant.
Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were rebuffed earlier this month by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said planned defense system in Eastern Europe would encourage more weapons development by his country. Putin later traveled to Iran, where he questioned whether that country is truly seeking nuclear weapons.
Bush did not cite Gates’ comments Tuesday, instead emphasizing the potential threat from Iran. "We need to take it seriously now," he said. "Now."
Oct 25, 2007 at 10:35 AM by Political Chase
Roll Call (sub. req.):
Ending months of speculation, former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) announced this morning that he will not be a candidate for Senate in 2008.
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) had been lobbying the former Senator hard to seek his old job next year. Kerrey’s entrance into the 2008 Nebraska race would have immediately put the seat being vacated by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) in play and caused another headache for the GOP.
Kerrey, who moved to New York after leaving the Senate at the beginning of 2001, has been president of the New School for almost six years.
“I have decided that I will not leave the New School to become a candidate for the United States Senate in Nebraska,” Kerrey said in a statement released by the Nebraska Democratic Party. “The reason is simple enough: For my family and me now is not the time for me to re-enter politics as a candidate.”
Kerrey’s decision amounts to the second bit of good news for the National Republican Senatorial Committee in as many days; on Tuesday wealthy San Antonio attorney Mikal Watts (D) pulled out of the Texas Senate race. Watts was another prized DSCC recruit.
With the popular Kerrey out of the way in solidly Republican Nebraska, the winner of the primary between former Gov. Mike Johanns (R) and state Attorney General Jon Bruning (R) will be favored to win the general election to replace Hagel.
Oct 25, 2007 at 9:00 AM by Political Chase
The warmongering continues to escalate. It has to right? There are only so many days that Bush and Cheney have left to pull this thing off.
New Steps by U.S. Against Iranians
The Bush administration will announce a long-debated policy of new sanctions against Iran on Thursday, accusing the elite Quds division of the Revolutionary Guard Corps of supporting terrorism, administration officials said Wednesday night.
The administration also plans to accuse the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps of proliferating weapons of mass destruction, the officials said. While the United States has long labeled Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, the decision to single out the Guard reflects increased frustration in the administration with the slow pace of diplomatic negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program.
Both designations will put into play unilateral sanctions intended to impede the Revolutionary Guard and those who do business with it. This is the first time that the United States has taken such steps against the armed forces of any sovereign government.
