It Turns Out There Was No Wolf

Even as Mike McConnell is making ham-handed attempts to prove his good faith with Democrats, the White House is facing up to the fact that its fear-mongering no longer works.

The White House, seeking to break a months-long standoff, has signaled to Democratic lawmakers it is open to negotiation over a proposal to expand government spy powers, according to officials familiar with the conversations.

[snip]

Over the two-week spring recess, administration officials contacted Democratic leaders to suggest they were open to compromise on updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "We definitely want to get it done," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "We’ve had some initial conversations with Congress about the need to get FISA reform done quickly." He added that Mr. Bush still prefers the Senate measure, which the White House negotiated with Senate Democrats.

[snip]

The White House’s more conciliatory posture reflects a recognition that the Bush administration’s leverage on national-security matters has slipped since this past summer, a top Republican congressional aide said. "There’s a recognition that if they’re actually going to get a product they can support, there’s going to have to be some new level of engagement," the aide said.

For months, the White House has tried to replicate its performance last August, when Republicans outmaneuvered Democrats and forced passage of a temporary expansion of domestic spy powers. Republicans then tried to use the temporary law’s expiration date to force Democrats to accept a permanent expansion. But since the law expired Feb. 16, House Democrats have stood firm.

Democrats see the White House’s new tack as acknowledgment that their strategy failed. "Once they saw we had the votes in the House for something other than the Senate bill, they saw the writing on the wall," said one Democratic aide. "They’re more willing to reach out and begin those conversations." [my emphasis]

We’re not there yet on a reasonable FISA bill. After all, Mukasey and McConnell are still plying dishonest claims. The Gorman article points to Steny Hoyer as the key player in the House, which seems logical–which means we’re still trying to persuade a moderate to stand firm.

But this is a good sign. If for no other thing, it suggests that Republicans are facing an election season, with a Presidential candidate who believes he should be elected solely because his Daddy was a big Admiral, finally recognizing the bankruptcy of its fear-mongering strategy.

image_print
45 replies
  1. Hugh says:

    Actually I would add CIA Director Michael Hayden to the duo of Mukasey and McConnell. These guys never tell the truth, make unsubstantiated claims, and just generally make stuff up. Then they say if we don’t do what they want and give them more power, we all are going to die.

  2. earlofhuntingdon says:

    We voted for Bush because his daddy was a big president; why can’t we vote for McBush because his daddy – and grandpappy – was a big admiral?

    I hope that the President’s complete flip-flop in his position on “accommodating” Democrats (by letting them choose the position, not the act), is a prelude to pretending his defeat on this issue isn’t relevant to our security or the GOP’s electoral prospects in the fall.

    Fantasies aside, how will Cheney/Bush protect their collective rear ends if amnesty fails. Pardons won’t cover a large enough expanse; they wouldn’t preclude the current civil law suits.

  3. Tross says:

    Welcome back, EW,

    This is a bit off topic, but I noticed in the NYT over the weekend there was a quote from Josh Bolten saying that Maliki had consulted the White House before taking on Sadr with the help of American forces, but there were many other reports that said the U.S. was surprised.

    I’m at work so I can’t find the link, but I wondered if you’d noticed this contradiction.

  4. merkwurdiglieber says:

    Hayden is really a piece of work, the protrait of an obviously bright
    man who has degenerated into a consummate bureaucrat, a systems
    administrator expert soaked up in the apparatus, oblivious to the
    sickness of it all… just cannot give up that bus drivers uniform even
    for his civilian job.

  5. al75 says:

    It really is remarkable: Richard Clark (Bush’s counterterrorism director) has written in “Against All Enemies” about how his pleas for a higher level of vigilance prior to 9/11 were ignored.

    9/11, Clark says, cannot be definitively stated to have been preventable — but we know that the most rudimentary measures were not taken (i.e. the kind of things done at the Millenium under Bubba)

    The repubs, however, have made themselves the party of Toughness by promoting torture and disregard of the bill of rights.

    The critical fact that the Bush admin’s failures were a central aspect of 9/11, is lost in the ensuing controversy.

    Remarkable.

    • Hugh says:

      The critical fact that the Bush admin’s failures were a central aspect of 9/11, is lost in the ensuing controversy.

      Remarkable.

      9/11 would have sunk a Democratic President. But even though the Bush Adminstration downgraded counterterrorism as a priority and ignored more immediate warnings, it not only locked in the narrative that it was not to blame (No one could have foreseen) but used what was a massive failure on its part to promote a new narrative that they were the ones who were tough on National Security, that they were the ones to be trusted, and that therefore all their assaults on Constitutional guarantees were justified.

      Remarkable indeed. A propaganda masterstroke.

      • perris says:

        9/11 would have sunk a Democratic President.

        excuse me hugh, 9/11 could not have possibly happened under a democratic president

        this guy was given presice intel telling him when, where, who, how, the exact targets

        this could not have happened under any president other then a member of the pnac

        it is not possible

      • merkwurdiglieber says:

        9/11 was designed to sink a democratic president, it was used later to
        jumpstart a failing republican president.

  6. TomJ says:

    It is April First, don’t get your hopes up.

    Anyway, the bottom line is that the terrorists have won.

  7. dude says:

    I agree with TomJ—Bush and Cheney are not interested at all in a compromise. They are still playing for time, waiting for moment to make the Dems look dumber than they already look. And why hasn’t the MSM called the intelligence officials on their lying?

  8. Praedor says:

    Hmmm. An acceptable FISA bill is simple: It contains NO RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY and has NO BASKET WARRANTS (and it goes without saying that any spying on American citizens at home or abroad MUST require a friggin’ warrant). The end.

    • perris says:

      I think we need to add to your list a log of who, where and when each and every american has already been spied

      • JimWhite says:

        I think we need to add to your list a log of who, where and when each and every american has already been spied

        The “who” part already exists. It’s called the US Census.

    • Hugh says:

      Heh. Well that bit about the Bear deal not really involving the taxpayers just went down the tubes. Treasury Agrees to Absorb any Losses to the Fed from Bear Stearns

      Well, that’s OK as long as it isn’t a bailout.

    • ProfessorFoland says:

      A more detailed article from the WSJ also contains the (suspected but not actually known) news that indeed the $30BB of securities are mortgage-backed.

      I think the Treasury news is only kinda-sorta news, in the same way. It’s always been apparent that the Fed could take losses, and it has been widely assumed that these losses would reduce the remittance back to Treasury. However, again, that was only suspected, not actually known; in principle, the Fed might have made its member banks eat the losses.

      Because of the way all the remittances work, I can see that there just might be a loophole such that this is not a direct Treasury expenditure that requires Congressional approval (though this is not at all clear to me and I’d love to hear from someone who understands it well). But if I were chair of a Congressional Banking Committee, I’d sure be threatening to look awfully close at the Fed’s charter.

  9. Neil says:

    Treasury Agrees to Absorb any Losses to the Fed from Bear Stearns

    Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled [losses] yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore…

  10. bmaz says:

    Okay guys. I thought it was significant enough to advise everyone, but let’s not get me in too much trouble for thread busting. I’m pretty much a repeat offender already….

  11. looseheadprop says:

    administration officials contacted Democratic leaders to suggest they were open to compromise on updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

    I think this is going to be some tweaking of language, but it won’t invovle compromise on retro active immunity.

    I wonder, can we get the Senate bill repealed? ANd get them to take a new vote on a bill that looks like the House bill? Why is it only the House bill that would be revoted? Why not the Senate bill?

  12. Mary says:

    14 – that story is worth something for the graphic alone. Wowser.

    Another brief OT, but TPM is linking to a write up on the GAO report on the Plame investigation which pretty much phrases the the special counsel’s office as wrapped up, but for responding to a few Congressional requests. Not that I think anyone had much hopes otherwise left anymore, but fwiw.

    • looseheadprop says:

      of the $2.56 spent, $1.5 was a bookeeping adjustment attricuting a percentage of their salries to the Sp. Con. buget line.

      So net “out of pocket” to t the US taxpayer was only $1.06.

      Ken Starr should be really really embarassed.

        • randiego says:

          They don’t embarrass, and they don’t back down.

          Bush backing down in FISA fight?

          Nick Juliano
          Published: Tuesday April 1, 2008

          After months of using politically loaded rhetoric and hyping “bogus” terror threats to push Congress to give him the domestic spying bill he’s demanding, President Bush seems to be backing down.

          This is a headline everywhere today and right now they are meeting to figure out how they steal the Dems lunch money this time. (insert Norquist ‘date rape’ quote here)

        • bmaz says:

          I wonder what the odds are that the basic deal has already been cut? Remember, as Congress was slitting town for their two week break, Hanoi Harry Reid said he was going to be working on a FISA solution over the break, and now we have the big push being put on by the Bushkevics. I wonder what has gone on already that we don’t know about? Is this a choreographed dance we are watching, or live action?

  13. AZ Matt says:

    From The Raw Story

    Bush backing down in FISA fight?

    Nick Juliano
    Published: Tuesday April 1, 2008

    After months of using politically loaded rhetoric and hyping “bogus” terror threats to push Congress to give him the domestic spying bill he’s demanding, President Bush seems to be backing down.

    • klynn says:

      Which tells me that Christy, EW, Glenn etc… need to go overtime on reminding people to make THOSE calls to Senators because, this is a reverse physch headline…

      No to retroactive immunity.

      Key word: seems… Repug speak for “not”.

  14. maryo2 says:

    John Ashcroft last flew on commercial planes before July 26, 2001. On this date he took a chartered flight.

    Is the illegal public surveillance dragnet related to the intelligence that caused Ashcroft to stop flying on commercial jets?

    • NCDem says:

      Is the illegal public surveillance dragnet related to the intelligence that caused Ashcroft to stop flying on commercial jets?

      The simple answer is no. It is my understanding that after Richard Clarke warned Condi Rice and got her to stop looking into her make-up mirror, she asked Clark to give this briefing to others like Ashcroft. The briefing was about the possibility of terrorist hijacking a commercial flight (no reason given). Ashcroft then took upon himself to stop flying commercial flights. He was scared shitless.

  15. DefendOurConstitution says:

    Weaker or not, Bush’s only card will continue to be played loadly and often: 9/11.

  16. MartyDidier says:

    Frankly, I don’t feel that in McCaine’s case with his Daddy was a big Admiral offers anything of value. Clearly to me, our Politcal system comprises of only two groups. Those who want the Constitution and those who don’t. I personally know of other issues from being in a family for more than 26 years who are actively involved in criminal activities for those who DON’T want the Constitution that something else is at work. What many seem to see appears to be theatrics for our amusement and it seems to work well.

    Marty Didier
    Northbrook, IL

  17. looseheadprop says:

    I was wondering that myself.

    I used to go the NYC Buget heraings with the Commissioner of the first agency I worked for. he would always hide an item or two (or ten) ineach art of the buget that he could sacrifice (like a chess piece) to keep the things he really wanted.

    I think they will trade away an expansion of power in exchange for retroatice immunity and call it a substantial compromise.

    Blerg (as Christy would say)

    • emptywheel says:

      Hasn’t BillBell gotten around to replacing Rodney Roid with Atari Bigbee yet? It’s a good time to do it, too, while phred is otherwise occupied.

      • bmaz says:

        Fitz versus Starr is a no brainer. There is a big difference between Fitz and even the lower level investigations during Clinton, like Mike Espy (19 million), Henry Cisneros (21 million) Ron Brown (over 3 million before he died) etc.

        EW – Packers resigned Bigby and Seattle extended Lofa Tatupu. Roids it is for you….

  18. Mary says:

    26 – it was run pretty tight, especially with travel. Starr should be embarrassed – although Starr did have a mandate for “the moon and more” If someone had that mandate and independence with the Bush admin – and limited themselves to the cream of the felony and criminal issues – I can’t imagine what we’d have.

Comments are closed.