The Political Chase

Warning! Warning! Warning!

This is one of the best challenges I’ve heard yet to Bush’s fear-mongering certain death to us all at the stroke of midnight.

If the nation is really going to be more vulnerable as the result of the expiration of the PAA (Protect AT&T Act), why hasn’t Homeland Security’s color coded threat level been raised to Magenta or Puce or some such thing?

BREAKING: FBI Receiving Unauthorized Email Access

(Update I - III below)

When FISA expires tonight, will the FBI still be able to receive unauthorized email access from an entire computer network by an “unnamed Internet provider, which mistakenly turned over all the e-mail from a small e-mail domain,” when it “set its filtering equipment to trap far more data than a judge had actually authorized.”

Mistakenly, yup.

New and improved revelations courtesy of Eric Lichtblau at the New York Times. I suppose he’ll get a grand jury subpoena from the Justice Department that’s just like James Risen’s.

Update I: Well, this should certainly add to the FISA debate when Congress returns.

The episode is an unusual example of what has become a regular if little-noticed occurrence, as American officials have expanded their technological tools: government officials, or the private companies they rely on for surveillance operations, sometimes foul up their instructions about what they can and cannot collect.

The problem has received no discussion as part of the fierce debate in Congress about whether to expand the government’s wiretapping authorities and give legal immunity to private telecommunications companies that have helped in those operations.

But an intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because surveillance operations are classified, said: “It’s inevitable that these things will happen. It’s not weekly, but it’s common.”

Update II: Interesting. How and why does the lead story of the largest newspaper in the world get buried in less than one hour?

This was the Times’ lead story on the web site when I checked it at 7:40 PM ET. And the timestamp indicated it was published “39 minutes ago”. At 8:29 PM ET, I went back to the site and the piece was not referenced anywhere on the front page. I then checked the U.S. section and there was no reference to it there, but it was listed at the top of the Washington sub-section.

As of 9:11 PM ET the timestamp says it was published “32 minutes ago,” or 8:39 PM ET. I captured this image of the front page at 8:59 PM ET.

This is an image from the Washington section as of 9:11 PM ET.

Update III:  Poltergeist. It’s back on the front page (11:07 PM ET), not the lede, but present and accounted for. Go figure.

Check the FISA countdown clock before it’s too late

The Right-Wing Fear-Mongers at the Heritage Foundation have a FISA countdown clock posted on the front page of their web site (h/t - Glenn Greenwald) to ensure everyone knows the precise moment when the Islamic Democracy and Freedom Haters will invade us, killing every man, woman and child.

So, if you want to watch that three-day video you rented or call Grandma before the Freedom Haters invade us and aren’t sure how much time you have left, just check the their site.

I am so relieved, because I mistakenly thought it was set to expire last night. Imagine how surprised I was when I woke up this morning, not dead, and heard our beloved President dishing out another dose (fourth day in a row) of fear-mongering and lies.

Some congressional leaders claim that this will not affect our security. They are wrong. Because Congress failed to act, it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack. At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad. This means that as terrorists change their tactics to avoid our surveillance, we may not have the tools we need to continue tracking them — and we may lose a vital lead that could prevent an attack on America.

No, Mr. Bush, has it wrong. Congress offered to enact a 21-day extension of the Protect America Act and he refused to sign it. Therefore, by default it is clearly his fault the law will expire. Very simple. Furthermore, as stated countless times, intelligence agencies will be able to collect whatever intelligence they need. If they stop collecting intelligence it will simply be because they or Mr. Bush choose not to, rather than any legislative limitation or obstacle.

McCain Flip-Flopping on Public Financing

Over the years, John McCain has enjoyed the perception by many that he is credible, a Man of Integrity, but my friends, John McCain is not a Man of Integrity. Instead, he is rapidly proving just how incredulous he is. His recent demand that Barack Obama use public funding is just one example of his flip-flopping, lies, and misrepresentations.

First, let’s get to the heart of the matter. McCain wants to accomplish two things: damage Obama’s credibility and dramatically reduce Obama’s economic advantage. He is trying to put Obama in a box the same way he illegitimately did Mitt Romney over withdrawal timetables in Iraq during the Florida Republican primary campaign. For days McCain hammered Romney with lies and misrepresentations, which the Washington Post’s Fact Checker documented and characterized as containing “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”

Yesterday McCain said, “I made the commitment to the American people that if I was the nominee of my party, I would go the route of public financing. I expect Senator Obama to keep his word to the American people as well.” But as Media Matters documented, this is more of McCain’s flip-flopping, lies and misrepresentations. (Emphasis added.)

In a February 14 article about whether Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (IL) will accept public campaign financing should he face off with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in the general election, the Associated Press reported that “McCain advisers have said in recent days that he would abide by his proposal” to use public funds if Obama also agrees to do so. But the AP did not mention that according to The New York Times, days before affirming that “he would abide by his proposal,” McCain advisers had said that he would not do so and would opt not to use public funds.

McCain said on March 1, 2007, that if he became the Republican nominee, he would accept public funds, provided the Democratic nominee did as well. However, according to a February 13 New York Times report, “Mr. McCain’s advisers said that the candidate, despite his signature legislative efforts to restrict the money spent on political campaigns, would not accept public financing and spending limits for this year’s general campaign.”

In a February 15 article noting that the “McCain campaign’s latest stand on the issue” is that it will, in fact, accept public funding if McCain’s Democratic opponent does the same, the Times similarly reported: “On Tuesday, one of Mr. McCain’s advisers told The New York Times that the campaign had decided to forgo public financing in the general election, an awkward admission for a senator who has made campaign finance reform a central part of his political persona.” The article noted that “[u]nder public-financing rules, the nominees are restricted to spending about $85 million each for the two-month general election campaign.”

I won’t bother detailing another recent flip-flop: his being against torture before he was for torture, or how much that is damaging his credibility as well.

Chelsea gets snarky on Iraq war vote

This may be old news to some since it actually happened several days ago, but I first read it in an NYT piece published today. Chelsea Clinton is hitting the college circuit campaigning for her mom (still refuses press access) and gave a snarky response to the toughest question challenging Clinton’s record - Hillary’s Iraq war vote.

The question was one she had heard before, but this time it was asked in downright hostile terms.

“Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost Iraqis a million of their lives?” a student asked Chelsea Clinton on Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Ms. Clinton replied: “She cast a vote based on the best available evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that’s extraordinary.”

I think I would have made it clear to Ms. Clinton that the absence or presence of clairvoyance was not the issue, but judgment is.