Keith Olbermann (MSNBC Countdown) blasted George Bush tonight by calling him a fascist and a liar in a Special Comment on FISA and telecom amnesty.
Expressing outrage, Olbermann said, “If you believe in the seamless, mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it. There is a dictionary definition. One word that describes that toxic blend. You are Fascist! Get them to print you a t-shirt with Fascist on it!”
Olbermann also reversed the rhetoric on Bush and declared that Bush had made America less safe by refusing to sign the FISA revision not granting immunity. Further challenging Bush he condemned him for not providing any evidence to support his fear-mongering claims.
Rep. Rush Holt succinctly explains the serious consequences of acquiescing to the fear-mongering demands of George Bush and the GOP Members of Congress to implement the FISA bill passed by the Senate yesterday (S. 2248).
I’m sure Rep. Holt will be faced with incredible retribution from the White House, the Terrorepublicans in Congress, the Sellout Democrats, and various administration agencies.
God knows, John Boehner may even breakdown and weep (again) over the shame and disgrace Rep. Holt has brought upon this country by defying the total authoritarian rule of George W. Bush.
New Mexico residents caucused on Super Tuesday, but with provisional ballots outstanding and a small margin between the leading candidates, the state couldn’t be called.
That’s extremely close, 1,709 votes, and not really helpful in terms of delegates given the complex proportional allocation of delegates. Most people knowledgeable about the algorithms have said Clinton needs to win by 60% or more in all states going forward to catch up with Obama.
That notwithstanding, the headline will probably be like manna to the Clinton camp.
The GOP spin machine is in full force with its fear-mongering trying to convince Americans they will die if Congress does not pass the FISA bill the President wants before the extensions to FISA expire this week. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s all grandstanding to insure Congress grants amnesty to the telecoms, and inherently to the Bush administration, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has called the President’s bluff (for now).
The extension to the FISA bill is the Protect America Act, which allows the administration to do anything it wants and circumvents judicial review of illegal wiretapping.
Details on Pelosi’s rebuttal in a moment, but first…
If we are to believe the fear-mongering president’s assertions (and that’s all they are) made yesterday and today, then we are in imminent danger of annihilation and the telecoms are included unless they’ve found a way to operate without people or facilities. Therefore, how can Bush make the argument that he won’t accept legislation that protects all of the people as provided for in the RESTORE Act?
And what evidence has Bush provided to support all the BS in his recent statements that the intelligence agencies are just going to halt and not be able to monitor terrorists? None. Not one single piece.
At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison. To carry out their plans, they must communicate with each other, they must recruit operatives, and they must share information.
The lives of countless Americans depend on our ability to monitor these communications. Our intelligence professionals must be able to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they’re planning.
To help our intelligence agencies do this, Congress passed the Protect America Act last year. Unfortunately, Congress set the law to expire on February 1st — and then failed to pass new legislation that would keep these tools in effect over the long run. …
The House’s failure to pass the bipartisan Senate bill would jeopardize the security of our citizens. As Director McConnell has told me, without this law, our ability to prevent new attacks will be weakened. And it will become harder for us to uncover terrorist plots.
This Saturday at midnight, legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning will be compromised. It would be a mistake if the Congress were to allow this to happen….
The Senate bill will provide fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in the efforts to protect America after the attacks of September the 11th. Without this protection, without this liability shield, we may not be able to secure the private sector’s cooperation with our intelligence efforts. And that, of course, would put the American people at risk….
Failure to act would harm our ability to monitor new terrorist activities, and could reopen dangerous gaps in our intelligence. Failure to act would also make the private sector less willing to help us protect the country, and this is unacceptable. The House should not leave Washington without passing the Senate bill….
The lives of countless Americans depend on our ability to monitor terrorist communications. Our intelligence professionals are working day and night to keep us safe, and they’re waiting to see whether Congress will give them the tools they need to succeed or tie their hands by failing to act.
Bush is just flat out lying. Furthermore, if he is so concerned about the safety of Americans then why did he refuse to pass the Senate Judiciary Committee’s bill, which gave the intelligence agencies everything they need, but did not grant amnesty to the telecoms. I know I’ve said this repeatedly, but where is the logic in putting the priority of corporations over citizens?
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi obviously anticipated the showdown that is taking place in Congress today as evidenced by her remarks published at The Gavel yesterday. She has put Bush on notice, using facts, not bullshit.
On Friday, a surveillance law insisted upon by the President last August will expire. Today, an overwhelming majority of House Democrats voted to extend that law for three weeks so that agreement could be reached with the Senate on a better version of that law. The President and House Republicans refused to support the extension and therefore will bear the responsibility should any adverse national consequences result.
However, even if the Protect America Act expires later this week, the American people can be confident that our country remains safe and strong. Every order entered under the law can remain in effect for 12 months from the date it was issued.
Furthermore, the underlying Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for the surveillance of terrorists and provides that in emergencies surveillance can begin without warrant, remains intact and available to our intelligence agencies. Unlike last August, the FISA court has no backlog of cases, and thus can issue necessary court orders for surveillance immediately.
The Republicans’ tirade appears to be a multi-faceted protest and disruption that began with with fear-mongering President Bush demanding this morning that the House rubber-stamp immediately the Senate’s version of the FISA bill passed Tuesday. The Senate’s bill provides amnesty for the telecoms, but the House version (RESTORE Act) passed weeks ago does not.
Rather than wait for the House and Senate to negotiate differences in their versions of the intelligence legislation, Bush wants a rubber-stamp of the Senate bill so he can sign it into law immediately. Bush has said he will not approve another extension, and House Republicans helped defeat a 21-day extension of the law on Thursday.”…
[Bush] denied claims that the issue had turned into a political game.
I certainly hope not,” Bush said. “
I can assure you that al-Qaida in their planning isn’t thinking about politics, they are thinking about hurting the American people again.”
“I guess you got to come to the conclusion that there’s a threat to America, or not a threat,” Bush said. “I mean, evidently, some people just don’t feel that sense of urgency. I do. And the reason I do is I firmly believe that there are still people out there who would do us harm.”
“Without this liability shield, we may not be able to secure the private sector’s cooperation. … and that of course would put the American people at risk,” Bush said.
After the president issued his ultimatum, the hot-headed Republicans disgraced themselves by calling for a vote to adjourn during a memorial service for Rep. Tom Lantos.
During what was supposed to be a somber memorial service in Statuary Hall for Rep. Tom Lantos, who died Monday, the House chamber became mired in chaos over procedural votes.
Democrats angrily denounced the GOP as insensitive for calling a “motion to adjourn” — essentially a dilatory tactic — while dignitaries were still giving tributes to Lantos, a Holocaust survivor who was chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. But Republican aides shot back quickly, saying it was Democrats who broke an agreement to keep the House in recess during the memorial service.
To some extent, it appears both sides are at fault, but the recriminations have been fast and furious.
“The disrespect that has been shown by a Republican member of Congress in calling a political procedural motion during the memorial service for the late Chairman Tom Lantos is incomprehensible,” said Stacey Bernards, a spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). “It is unjustifiable, and Republican leaders should restrict their members from further such action.”
A senior Republican aide, however, said the GOP was given no choice in asking for a vote because Democrats broke their commitment to keep the House in recess during the memorial service.
After the disrupted memorial service, Democrats introduced the criminal contempt resolution against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. Upon introduction of the resolution, the GOP crybabies walked out after their whining Minority Leader John Boehner had the chutzpah to deliver a diatribe on the Democrats “political grandstanding.” Paul Kiel’s video is below.
I’m not sure if there were any notable events that occurred after Boehner’s fulmination and subsequent walkout, but apparently the GOP returned to the chambers, the contempt resolutions were voted on and passed overwhelmingly in a 223 to 32 vote. Oddly lopsided isn’t it?
No word yet on the FISA situation…more to come.
Update: This is the video of Boehner’s diatribe (via TPM).
Transcript of video:
BOEHNER: Ladies and gentleman, we will not stand here and watch this floor be abused for pure political grandstanding at the expense of our national security. We will, we will, we will not stand for this and we will not stay for this. And I would ask my, my House Republican colleagues and those who believe, uh, that we should be here protecting, uh, the American people not vote on this bill. Let’s just get up and leave.
House Republicans Thursday left the chamber ahead of a vote seeking to hold White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before a panel investigating the firing of several United States attorneys.
The move was intended to show that Republicans want to work on a permanent update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act rather than be part of a “partisan fishing expedition,” as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) put it.
In the wake of multiple loses, Hillary Clinton launched an ad in Wisconsin yesterday taking aim at Barack Obama. There is no doubt the ad targets Obama, but is it a negative attack ad? Attack ad or not, the ad’s focus is not clear. Although the focus seems to be debating, Clinton muddies the water by infusing health care issues.
The ad is weak at best. If the issue is Barrack won’t debate, that’s a very weak argument. There have been 20 Democratic debates (iirc)! And if the ad is about health care, well, they simply wasted their time because the ad has no substance on the matter. Want an example of weakness? After being viewed on YouTube 101,808 in just one day, it has a one-star rating. I know that’s not scientific or qualified random-sampling, but it makes a statement.
I don’t think the ad is a negative attack ad in the classic sense but rather attack-lite. Consider this part of the ad: “Maybe he’d prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions.” Now, that’s hitting hard isn’t it? If Obama is the Democratic nominee, the Republicans will not have any attack ads with “maybe” in it. They’ll be direct, hard-hitting, and a clear, but blunt message (legitimate or not).
On the other hand, Ariel Alexovich at The Caucus clearly views it as a negative attack Ariel says “the gloves are off” and Clinton is “attacking Barack Obama.”
But let’s assume for a moment this is the Clinton camp going negative. That’s probably a significant indication the Clinton camp is indeed worried. According to Ron Fournier, Clinton has only three options available to try and stop Obama and going negative is one of the three. And in my opinion going negative probably carries the greatest risk.
Two senior Clinton advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the race candidly, said the campaign feels the New York senator needs to quickly change the dynamic by forcing Obama into a poor debate performance, going negative or encouraging the media to attack Obama. They’re grasping at straws, but the advisers said they can’t see any other way that her campaign will be sustainable after losing 10 in a row.
The Washington Post (Howard Kurtz) has a lengthy piece on Chris Matthews today. Obviously the criticism he has received lately for his misogynistic remarks about Hillary Clinton et al. motivated the piece.
On his show, on the street, on the phone, on the party circuit, this 62-year-old refugee from Democratic politics wants to tell you what he thinks. Now. Right away. Not after the next commercial break. Not after the guest finishes talking. He blurts out what’s on his mind, seemingly without a filter. And that quality, which is the essence of his television success, also keeps getting him into trouble.
That’s precisely what happened last month when Matthews said on his show that Hillary Clinton owed her political career to sympathy stemming from her husband’s infidelity. He eventually offered a mea culpa , but in some ways the dust-up was classic Matthews: operating on the edge, praising and prodding and poking people in the eye.
