Dick Wants His Immunity, and He Wants It Now

What wizard of political strategy decided that Dick Cheney was the appropriate person to harangue Congress about approving immunity for himself and all the other Admin folks who pushed illegal wiretapping the telecoms?

The unfortunate aspect of the Protect America Act is a sunset provision, which makes the law expire on the first of February –- just 10 days from now. That leaves Congress only nine days in which to act to keep the intelligence gap closed. And with the day of reckoning so close at hand, we’re reminding Congress that they must act now to modernize FISA.

First, our administration feels strongly that an updated FISA law should be made permanent, not merely extended again with another sunset provision. We can always revisit a law that’s on the books –- that’s part of the job of the elected branches of government. But there is no sound reason to pass critical legislation like the Protect American Act and slap an expiration date on it. Fighting the war on terror is a long-term enterprise that requires long-term, institutional changes. The challenge to the country has not expired over the last six months. It won’t expire any time soon –- and we should not write laws that pretend otherwise.

Second, the law should uphold an important principle: that those who assist the government in tracking terrorists should not be punished with lawsuits. We’re asking Congress to update FISA and especially to extend this protection to communications providers alleged to have given such assistance any time after September 11th, 2001. This is an important consideration, because some providers are facing dozens of lawsuits right now. Why? Because they are believed to have aided the U.S. government in the effort to intercept international communications of al Qaeda-related individuals.

We’re dealing here with matters of the utmost sensitivity. It’s not even proper to confirm whether any given company provided assistance. But we can speak in general terms. The fact is, the intelligence community doesn’t have the facilities to carry out the kind of international surveillance needed to defend this country since 9/11. In some situations there is no alternative to seeking assistance from the private sector. This is entirely appropriate. Indeed, the Protect America Act and other laws allow directives to be issued to private parties for intelligence-gathering purposes.

[snip]

Actions by Congress sometimes have unexpected consequences. But a failure to enact a permanent FISA update with liability protectionswould have predictable and serious consequences. Our ability to monitor al Qaeda terrorists will begin to degrade –- and that, we simply cannot tolerate. So I’m confident that my colleagues on Capitol Hill will join together to make sure this nation has every tool it needs to fight and to win the war on terror.

[snip]

This cause is bigger than the quarrels of party and the agendas of politicians. And if we in Washington, all of us, can only see our way clear to work together, then the outcome should not be in doubt. We will do our part to keep this nation safe. We will press on despite any difficulty. And we will prevail. [my emphasis]

If I can think of one person from whom an appeal to bipartisanship should be dismissed as farcical, it’s Dick Cheney, particularly as he mobilizes all this fear-mongering as a tactic to exert partisan political pressure on people in Congress. Further, this Administration’s history of lying about details of the FISA program–and of refusing to share key documents with Congress–further mocks Dick’s appeal to bipartisanship and cooperation with Congress.

More importantly, as we have discussed repeatedly, immunity isn’t going to do shit for the telecoms (particularly since they’re cutting off wiretaps anyway, since the FBI isn’t paying its bills). They will be indemnified for anything that they’ve done with AG approval (though there is that tricky bit about the period following the hospital incident, when then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales approved it, but never mind). Rather, any immunity is immunity for those who decided it was a swell idea to illegally wiretap Americans. And that list of people begins with Dick Cheney.

Plus, Dick Cheney has a way to eliminate the problem he says the telecoms have: Stop declaring State Secrets every time someone sneezes in a court room. The entire logic to Administration (and, sadly, Jello Jay’s) claims that the telecoms need immunity is that they can’t defend themselves in Court. Well, that’s Dick Cheney’s fault, because he and the Administration have declared State Secrets even in the face of abundant public evidence that the telecoms did what they’re accused of doing.

So someone decided that they would get the person least willing to cooperate with Democrats, the person who single-handedly could eliminate the legal problem they allege the telecoms have, and the person who stands to benefit most from an immunity provision for telecoms, to head out to pressure Congress? And they thought this would work to persuade Democrats to put aside all the troubling legal issues to grant immunity?

And if that’s not pathetic enough, consider this: rather than laughing at Dick’s little harangue, as the Democrats should do, they’ll probably cow to him and pass immunity.

image_print
89 replies
  1. phred says:

    Congress hasn’t stood up to Cheney yet, why on earth would they start now? Having him go to Congress makes perfect sense to me. THEY DON’T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH DICK OR HIS POLICIES. I would have a lot more respect for Reid and Pelosi if they were simply honest enough to switch to the Republican Party. They won’t, because the two party system is a farce and they need to maintain appearances. I am way past disgusted…

    • BayStateLibrul says:

      And Pelosi/Reid can’t even multi-task (kill contempt charges/implement
      Wall Street Recovery Program)…

  2. Glorfindel says:

    Teh Prince of Darkness speaks, devoid of any credibility.

    At whom are these charades aimed? Are they meant as implied threats toward any who would rock the sinking boat? I don’t really get it.

  3. Loo Hoo. says:

    This part scares me:

    This is entirely appropriate. Indeed, the Protect America Act and other laws allow directives to be issued to private parties for intelligence-gathering purposes.

    So if Cheney tells a private corporation it wants a list of all customers, or tells a church it wants a list of all members, the government need only issue a directive? Everyone must comply?

    • LS says:

      Sure sounds like a veiled threat…make it easy on yourselves…this is an offer you can’t refuse…you might as well pass this…or we’ll use the info we’ve got on you from our secret directive to gather intelligence on you.

  4. Ishmael says:

    Sadly, despite the efforts of Senator Dodd, it does appear as if the “votes are there” for retroactive immunity. I always thought that part of the job of an effective Congressional leadership was to find the votes, or coerce them, or trade them off, a la Lyndon Johnson. And I wouldn’t rely on the Presidentials to do anything about it either, the calculation is that on January 20, 2009, Hillary or Obama will be able to declare the long national nightmare is over, and we will never speak of it again.

  5. Sparkatus says:

    Phred is right. Congress has laid down again and again. As Greenwald points out today, Reid hasn’t forced the Republicans to actually follow through on threats to filibuster by talking a bill to death…but he has just threatened that Dodd must do so, in the open Senate.

    I just can’t fathom what political minds are making these decisions on the Democratic side. As for Republicans…they keep winning the legislative battles even as they have begun to lose the electoral ones.

  6. JodiDog says:

    Many people forget in their personal Political Maneuvers and Ambitions that

    we must protect our country above all else OR there will be nothing else.

    This protection requires that we must be able to ferret out those moles who would burrow deep into the dikes that keep the evil forces at bay, and who would release havoc on this very precious country.

    • phred says:

      The ONLY promise that our elected officials make is to uphold and defend THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. That’s it Jodi dear. It is NOT as Hillary said in a recent debate to defend the country, it is NOT as you claim to ferret out moles. IT IS TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. Someday I hope you will understand this basic fundamental concept that is the BEDROCK of our nation. I doubt you or your frightened little chums will ever truly understand. So why don’t you go tuck yourself in bed with a cup of warm milk and let some grownups take charge for awhile.

      • Neil says:

        “So why don’t you go tuck (sic) yourself in bed with a cup of warm milk and let some grownups take charge for awhile”.

      • JodiDog says:

        phred,

        twice in the Constitution the words

        “provide for the common defence,” appear.

        Anyone supporting that document must support those simple words.

        I do.

        • masaccio says:

          We provide for the common defense by passing laws, and by following laws. One thing we defend ourselves from is our own government, which is the reason patriots are sickened by the law-breaking Bush administration.

    • behindthefall says:

      JodiDog January 23rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
      6

      Many people forget in their personal Political Maneuvers and Ambitions that

      we must protect our country above all else OR there will be nothing else.

      This protection requires that we must be able to ferret out those moles who would burrow deep into the dikes that keep the evil forces at bay, and who would release havoc on this very precious country.

      Precisely what is being done here, on this very blog, if you get what I mean.

    • bobschacht says:

      Many people forget in their personal Political Maneuvers and Ambitions that

      we must protect our country above all else OR there will be nothing else.

      This protection requires that we must be able to ferret out those moles who would burrow deep into the dikes that keep the evil forces at bay, and who would release havoc on this very precious country.

      Your statement poses a false dichotomy. We have a system of laws that does just fine at ferreting out moles, as long as we have a competent government. If our government is incompetent, then no amount of sacrifices in our liberty will be sufficient to protect us. We will have lost our liberty for nothing.

      Ben Franklin: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

      Bob in HI

  7. JohnJ says:

    I have said before; Reid and Pelosi are survivors, nothing more. To have kept their jobs during the first 6 years since the virtual overthrow of our republic means they were no threat to the ruling junta. You have to wonder if their current performance is the exact reason they were kept in there; to “lead” just in case the junta lost the majority.

    Can’t we find a way to replace Reid with Dodd?

  8. brendanx says:

    I’d prefer to die of moles in my dikes than suffer more mixed metaphors from the entity that generates such comments.

  9. Ishmael says:

    JodiDog – reminds me of the immortal words of Major Frank Burns from MASH –

    “The way I see it, unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free.” ….

    …except that when he said it, it was supposed to be, you know, funny!

  10. bobschacht says:

    Their worst outcome is to leave the present law in place. In that case, they don’t get any of the changes they want. No new bill is better than a bad bill. Any new bill will probably have features we don’t want. Therefore no new bill is probably our best case scenario.

    Bob in HI

    • BlueStateRedHead says:

      make sense. I need sense. I also need a good Fisa effort on our part, action to rouse me from my Democratic Primary Fatigue.Thnak goodness there is EW at the tape/email/fisa/scandals wheel for us, so to speak.

  11. earlofhuntingdon says:

    But this is classic Cheney. He comes out of hiding when he knows the coast is clear, no enemy ships on the horizon. He’s already parleyed with Jello Jay, and Harry Reidless is working overtime to make their amnesty-laden deal happen before Valentine’s Day – Democrats and citizens be damned.

    After all, Dick sees no point in sticking a political shiv in an opponent if he doesn’t know who did it. Cheney’s version of “bipartisanship” is to let the guy finish his shower first.

  12. pdaly says:

    He’s trying to appear Congressional, I suppose. But I suspect he really wants to be UNITARY EXECUTIVEISH. I’m sure it’s hard to wear two hats.

    • brendanx says:

      Who originated this “Homeland”, anyway? It really is un-American sounding, reminiscent of “Heimat”.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        I don’t know the origins of its use by the Bush administration. But I believe that whomever named it the “Homeland” InSecurity Department knowingly adopted the Germanic symbolism. Just as they did when adopting “enhanced interrogation” techniques, a literal translation of the Nazi’s verschaefte Vernehmung.

      • TheraP says:

        Homeland – yes, does not sound like “English.” Reminds me of South Africa actually. Or if Germany, fascism seems to fit.

  13. oldtree says:

    and a kangaroo court gave Jose Padilla 17 years. There is your terrorist prosecution. The rest are Dick’s bosom buddies. His allies, well, the folks he provides top secret information to in other countries.
    when are folks going to wake up and realize the terrorists are in other countries and simply want us out of their country? Is that so difficult to understand? It is the terrorists in our own country that have to be eradicated. They are our government it appears. They do nothing about law breaking on the most extreme scale this country has ever seen.
    terrorists. what BS. If you can convince a few folks that the video is real, you don’t require any more proof. It is sad what people think they see on videos that truly isn’t there. A prime example was the recent speedboat incident. I heard rational people saying things about videos that didn’t even exist on the videos. Audio is not video, they are totally different aspects melded together out of sync.

    it is sad what folks think of as real. tv doesn’t have anything real for you to see, I trust you know that? Every channel is made for entertainment, period. Don’t read anything into the crap you see, as it is a video. Every aspect can be fake and you wouldn’t have a clue. and that is that simple as well. If you try to remember everything is just like Star Wars, you won’t get fooled again by the crap someone tells you is real.

  14. LS says:

    “The fact is, the intelligence community doesn’t have the facilities to carry out the kind of international surveillance needed to defend this country since 9/11.”

    Duck and Cover.

  15. BayStateLibrul says:

    From his Heretic Foundation speech

    Cheney said such providers “face dozens of lawsuits.”

    Tough shit.
    Dick is a slut.

  16. maryo2 says:

    Dear Dick,

    They don’t hate us. They hate YOU. We all HATE YOU. Why don’t YOU go away? It would make the country safer, dontcha know. YOU are the terrorist that WE are harboring. The WORLD wants to to bring justice to YOU.

    Leave the little brown people who live above oil alone, you %^)*&_(*&-%$$.

  17. Rayne says:

    The fact is, the intelligence community doesn’t have the facilities to carry out the kind of international surveillance needed to defend this country since 9/11. In some situations there is no alternative to seeking assistance from the private sector. This is entirely appropriate. Indeed, the Protect America Act and other laws allow directives to be issued to private parties for intelligence-gathering purposes.

    So get a gawddamned warrant. Use FISA as it existed in 2000. Do your damned job and protect and defend the Constitution, DeadEye.

    There’s not a bloody thing in the lengthy litany of things that went wrong on and before 9/11 that would have been made worse by getting a warrant or going through FISA. If some senior administration officials and folks below through the chain of command had simply done their damned jobs instead of –oops– not doing them, 9/11 could have been a day more like 2/26/93 at worst, and likely much better.

    What a stupid, arrogant, useless wart on humanity; he’s in a panic and WE need to cover his ass for him, just like local media and the Armstrong family in the wake of his little hunting accident. We should throw his ass off the ranch for being such a hack — that would have been the right response 2 years ago when he shot an old man in face.

    You know, I think this speech is begging for us to ratchet up the bidding war. The chits right now on the table are the contempt charges against Rove and Miers, along with immunity. Screw it; let’s up the ante. We’ll see your demand for immunity and raise you one frogmarch out of office.

  18. grayslady says:

    Guaranteed Reid and Pelosi will cave to the dark forces. Between Obama’s campaign, Bloomberg’s “unity” pitch, and all the WaPo conservative pundits, there’s a huge PR effort to convince Americans that if we can just have “bipartisanship” then everything will change. Cheney’s just joining the echo chamber.

    Dems are terrified of being called obstructionist. To them, that’s more important than the rule of law, the Constitution, or just about anything else other than trying to stay in office. Cheney knows how to play to their weak side.

  19. pdaly says:

    I followed ew’s link to the full text of the speech.

    I laughed when I found this:

    “Their method is plain; is to plan in secret, and to proceed by stealth, so that we won’t know what they’re up to until a moment of sudden, catastrophic violence.”

    Touché, Mr. VP, touché. Takes one to know one.

      • pdaly says:

        That’s understandable. It was hidden among all the repetitions of “9/11″ and “September 11th.” I just happened to scroll onto it.

  20. TheraP says:

    I’m looking at the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary right now. There is no entry for homeland. Suggests to me there is no historical usage of this word in English.

    Just found this preface to book, which suggests that the term “homeland” is part of a mythological view – by a people – of its place. And that it implies a whole surrounding mythology.

    Here’s a tidbit:

    Until recent years, few Americans and even fewer foreigners have realized that beneath the cultural heritage of the Enlightenment—with its ideals of free thought, personal liberty, and tolerance toward others—a more ancient worldview has persisted. According to this view, God had reserved this country to be the Promised Land for his True Church, his New Israel. The Puritans brought this exceptionalist mythology with them, and the early republic elaborated it. Manifest Destiny was understood as God’s own compassionate plan, for it would have to be here, in this ample American homeland, that his Chosen People would someday establish for the benefit of all nations the millennial kingdom prophesied in the book of Revelation. The latter text, however, added quite different elements to the American mythology. Revelation, the final book of the Christian Bible, speaks of the People of God as victims of unprovoked aggression, martyrs to the human agents of demonic malevolence—of pure evil. This apocalyptic prophecy has always braced Americans to accept the bitter and otherwise incomprehensible truth that, despite their righteousness and generosity, there would be those abroad who would regard them not merely as peculiar but as arrogant and selfish as well.

    And another:

    As for that key phrase, “homeland security,” there is something paradoxical (not to say Orwellian) about it when the word “security” has come to evoke its very opposite. No doubt “The Department of Homeland Anxiety” would have been more accurate but not have struck quite the right tone. Whenever we sense a gap—in this case, a very wide gap—between language and reality, belief and experience, we are entitled to analyze crucial words and question the motives of those who disseminate them. Here, an inquiry into mythic discourse begins to be useful.

    Homeland: Like so much else that cheney/bush have proposed, this clearly has a ring of strangeness about it. Another mindset… not our own.

    Here’s the link in case you want to read the whole preface or the Book: Homeland Mythology by Christopher Colins.

    • TheraP says:

      Another quote related to this book, from the jacket I think:

      Since 9/11, America has presented itself to the world as a Christianist culture, no less antimodern and nostalgic for an idealized past than its Islamist foes. Their shared master-narrative might sound like this: Once upon a time, the values of the righteous community coincided with those of the state. Home and land were harmoniously united under God. But through intellectual pride (read: science) and disobedience (read: human rights), this God-blessed homeland was lost and now worth every drop of blood it takes, ours and others’, to recover.

      Scary stuff!

    • bobschacht says:

      “Homeland: Like so much else that cheney/bush have proposed, this clearly has a ring of strangeness about it. Another mindset… not our own.”

      TheraP,
      Thanks for this info. However, I have a slight quibble with your conclusion quoted above. The Manifest Destiny lingo that you quoted in your comment shows that this kind of thinking goes right back to the Mayflower. If you read up on the Fort mentality of the Pilgrims, and the way they responded to their security challenges, it is possible to observe a lot of similarity between the attitudes of Myles Standish and Dick Cheney. They both endorsed pre-emptive war. But at least Standish was an actual military officer with experience in battle, whereas Cheney is only an armchair general. Nevertheless, I think it would please him to be compared with Myles Standish. But at least Standish would not act unilaterally without authorization from Bradford.

      Bob in HI

      • TheraP says:

        Maybe you’re right. But I hate to believe that’s the only perspective one could take.

        Anyway, I still find it “strange.” So maybe I’m not a good American, not a good example of Mayflower ancestry.

        • bobschacht says:

          In response to bobschacht @ 45

          Maybe you’re right. But I hate to believe that’s the only perspective one could take.

          Anyway, I still find it “strange.” So maybe I’m not a good American, not a good example of Mayflower ancestry.

          Well, I have Mayflower ancestry myself, from Bradford, and that gives me mixed feelings. There are plenty of these shadows in our past (perhaps I should speak only for myself) and it is best if we acknowledge how easy it is to justify all manner of things when we feel fearful.

          Bob in HI

          • TheraP says:

            Well said, Bob. I’m honestly not sure who my ancestor is. I suppose I should find out (or maybe not…).

            In any case you are right about the analysis. I credit that. But that kind of thinking, however, scares me more than 9/11 or any threats ever did. That kind of thinking likely invited 9/11.

            But I did find it fascinating, nonetheless.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      It’s an allusion to Hitler’s use of the term “Fatherland” and evokes goose-stepping and the rise of authoritarian ideologies (like National Socialism, or ‘Nazi’s) in Germany in the 1930s, and neocon authoritarians in the US today.

      • TheraP says:

        I agree. But Vaterland is a native German word, whereas Homeland is not a native English word. Even the German word Heimat has a very homey connotation in German. (And capitalizing the word “Homeland” is certainly not English. That’s German.)

        Yes, homeland has this fascist feel to it. War President. War Powers. You gotta defend the “homeland” with war to justify undoing the Rule of Law and assuming all sorts of “war powers.” That the neocons, who were so dead set against another Hitler, ended up adopting so many fascist conventions, is pretty mind-boggling.

  21. klynn says:

    Amazing…Jane’s post at FDL Senator Edwards We Need You To Lead gets 762 Diggs and Cheney suddenly becomes all bipartisan about FISA and telecom immunity?

    I chuckle at the fun of this one…Oh to be a fly on the wall in the Ex Office Wing…

    Seriously though, this IS serious…

  22. cboldt says:

    The bit about the telecoms can’t mount a defense is true in only one sense — they aren’t the ones who are asserting state secret. But they don’t NEED to mount a defense, when the government gets the cases tossed for want of evidence. “State secret” amounts to a defense, and a mighty effective one at that.

    • bmaz says:

      The bit about the telecoms can’t mount a defense is true in only one sense — they aren’t the ones who are asserting state secret. But they don’t NEED to mount a defense, when the government gets the cases tossed for want of evidence. “State secret” amounts to a defense, and a mighty effective one at that.

      Exactly. And if that doesn’t work, and liability is ever imposed, they just whip out the indemnification card; which, apparently, nobody seems to understand, they already have in their hand. I am absolutely stupified by the level of discourse to date on the immunity issue. Shallow is too kind. Mindless is insufficient.

      • klynn says:

        Hey bmaz, I cannot remember if it was here (about a month ago) or over at FDL but I think I asked a question about FISA that got you and LHP discussing the fact that passing telecom immunity could in fact hinder or deny discovery in potential cases against Bush/Cheney…(I think it may have been a Christy post about the destroyed tapes)

        In addition to the 4th Amend. Constitutional protection given with a “no telecom immunity” vote perhaps we can add in making sure we are not ending the balance of power for Congress to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors within the Executive Branch…An equally important aspect of the Constitution.

        I think this speech was Cheney’s newest effort to protect his arse…Read this speech in the context of present information which has hit the fan in the past two weeks and it becomes more twisted…

        • bmaz says:

          In a nutshell, if immunity is passed, there will be no cases against Bush and Cheney. At least not over the surveillance issues, and that is exactly the point of the desire for immunity. By granting immunity for the surveillance action, the only viable avenues for discovery into what this administration has done, i.e. the civil suits pending and that might still be filed, is lost. It is crystal clear that Congress will take no action. Without the details and facts, there is no basis to ever have a case against Bush or Cheney. Tack onto that the fact that an award of immunity lends the presumption of acceptable and necessary action in surveillance in the name of the country. Basically, the award of immunity ratifies and authorizes the acts and gives them the legislative stamp of approval. Game over on the snooping and the precedent will be set for the future. It will take no longer than the return of the next iteration of the Federalist set in power in Washington for these newly authorized national security powers to start being adopted into every day life traditional law enforcement and criminal law. Again, game over; might as well go ahead and strike the fourth amendment, it will be so shallow and useless as to not even be there. This has been a slow slippery slope progression that has been underway underneath your noses for about three decades now.

          • klynn says:

            I understood the aspect irt the surveillance, 4th Amend- game over aspect. My question that LHP responded on was that it appeared in the language of FISA (section regarding video, teleconferencing, teleconferencing surveillance, email, blackberries…) that if telecom immunity passes it will also hinder/deny discovery regarding the destroyed video tapes and missing emails and all the other Bush/Cheney controversies/illegalities?

            Sorry to sound all tin foil. But in reading FISA the language read “larger” than just surveillance of possible terrorists. It would not be the first time this administration used legislation or judicial decisions to back up the unitary executive…

            • bmaz says:

              Oh, sorry about that then. With regard to your question, no I don’t believe it directly affects that. It does not particularly help either; because, again, it creates a presumption of propriety in the various actions. But as to a direct evidentiary effect on the type of cases you describe, no; as long as inquiries into the same are permitted, and actually made, the normal legal and congressional evidentiary rules would still maintain.

  23. IrishJIm says:

    Can the next congress revoke immunnity? If we elect a Democratic President and keep Democratic control of Congress, can we reverse this terrible decision that this congress is about to make? Also, why is no one framing this in the sense of: We defeated nazi’s, won the cold war and kept Americans Safe for 200 years without taping into their private communications. Why is it that this administration is so inept it cannot keep us safe from Terrorists hiding in caves talking on cell phones??? This has to be framed in a manner of incompetence and weakness.

    • TheraP says:

      This from tpm Muckraker thread:

      Speaking to reporters today, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) said that he would again filibuster any bill that a provision in it granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms — or as he put it, “use every tool at my disposal as a Senator” to stop it. So if you were wondering whether anything has changed since Dodd dropped out of the presidential race, nothing has.

  24. Mary says:

    To the initial question – probably the same wizard who turned him loose to twist arms to overcome the Feingold filibuster on the Patriot Act renewals and who turned him loose to cram the MCA habeas suspensions and immunity for bestiality. So far, it’s a pretty damn successful wizard.

    God forbid that there should be a Dem presidential candidate who will come into office primed to do anything about the “W” wizardry. *sigh*

    No ketchup time, so this may have already been refernced, but Scott Horton takes a look at Yoo’s op piece:

    http://harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002226

    and asks the question on everyone’s mind

    …would it not indeed be a compliment to call John Yoo “mediocre”?

    Yes, it would.

  25. Mary says:

    Well damn – now that I try minimal ketchup, phirst sentence, phirst comment, phrom phred shows I am a redundancy:

    Congress hasn’t stood up to Cheney yet, why on earth would they start now?

  26. lllphd says:

    hm. not so shocking to me that the big dick was the one to deliver this intimidating speech.

    who decided? why, the big dick, who else? he of course appointed his sorry self, just as he appointed his sorry self to be VP (Virtual President).

    altogether predictable, really.

  27. pdaly says:

    I’d like to help out JodiDog in case the Bush Administration eats her homework:

    hint: Article I: twice, Article II: twice, Article III: once

    • BrianinSeattle says:

      I too have wondered about the Jodi. At first I thought it was a spam bot. So many one line, first response posts. Then she (I think) made the case that a real person was behind there.

      After that, I thought, there must be a real brilliance under her persistent obsession with this blog. Everyone else here seems pretty smart. So I looked and read and re-read, but it seems there is not. Just a frightened little soul shivering in a corner watching for the next Emptywheel post to spit out another useless splat. Probably not worth attempting to engage much further. Such is life.

  28. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    CHENEY: We’re dealing here with matters of the utmost sensitivity.

    Other matters of “utmost sensitivity” to Richard Bruce Cheney include:
    – his Secret Energy Tax Force,
    – no-bid defense contracts for the War on Terror,
    – torture of political detainees, as a policy of the BushCheney administration,
    – the failure to find WMD,
    – the sabotage of the Dept of Justice and USAG firings,
    – several million missing emails that laws require be turned over to the National Archives for safe keeping,
    – the ‘outing’ of Valerie Plame, which compromised US ability to track WMD,
    – illegal surveillance on US citizens,
    – the Big Shitpile (ie., US debt load),
    – the US economy,
    – the number of Iraq Vets not receiving adequate medical followup in timely fashion…

    Think anyone in Congress will point out that in view of these OTHER issue of ‘utmost sensitivity’,Cheney has no credibility on FISA.
    Nor does he have credibility on much of anything at this point.

    • Loo Hoo. says:

      Hold it right there. Mary Matalin and George Bush find him credible. Or at least they believe someone else might find him credible if enough people scream about it on TV.

      • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

        Well, hey… that would the same George Bush who bought the line that the Iraqi’s would welcome us with flowers, and that if we all shopped enough after 9/11, America would be a stronger, more prosperous, safer nation…?

        Well… I see your point.
        Nevermind what Cheney actually does, says, or how many crimes he commits – what matters is who’s screaming about his Utter Greatness on teevee.

        Silly me.
        I’m sooooo 20th century.
        So hung up in the outdated notions of good and evil; truth and falsehood; cause and effect.
        I really need to get over it.
        (Clearly JodiDog has gotten over it, so I know it’s possible.)

        I keep forgetting that itsapost9-11worldandeverythingischangedandrealityisonlywhathappensonteevee.

        I’m such a dunce.
        Foolishly, I assume that Congress is looking at evidence, at legal frameworks; in fact, they’re looking at who’s screaming on teevee.
        Damn.
        I’m such an idiot!

        • TheraP says:

          I’m having the very same problems, rOTL. We may need to form a support group. If you figure out how to “get over it,” please let me know.

          Meanwhile, I’m deep into Rule of Law, Constitution, right to have your vote counted type of thinking.

          Somehow I missed it when everybody else had the “brain chip change.”

          Idiocy is me. Too.

  29. radiofreewill says:

    Looks like we’re in the run-up to Monday’s State of the Union Speech, and Bush has ‘missioned’ Cheney to ‘Sell the Immunity.’

    • BillE says:

      RFW – I think you got it backwards. Bush is such a puppet. He will be selling Cheney’s personal immunity. Its questionable, but he might not even know that is the case.

  30. bigbrother says:

    They wire tap whether it’s legal or not. Congress didn’t stop them. It’s a non issue for the NSA or the rest of the spooks.

  31. 4jkb4ia says:

    If you were going to be determinedly optimistic, you would say that Cheney was being brought out because a) something was insufficient about Mukasey and McConnell supporting immunity or b) Cheney had to supply public talking points to the Republican senators. However, the situation about having the votes to stop this thing was so fragile the first time that it is not necessary for Cheney to persuade more than one or two people of anything.

Comments are closed.