Forgive and Forget?

January 16, 2009

Paul Krugman, Op-Ed Columnist, NY Times

Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.

At the Justice Department, for example, political appointees illegally reserved nonpolitical positions for “right-thinking Americans” — their term, not mine — and there’s strong evidence that officials used their positions both to undermine the protection of minority voting rights and to persecute Democratic politicians.

The hiring process at Justice echoed the hiring process during the occupation of Iraq — an occupation whose success was supposedly essential to national security — in which applicants were judged by their politics, their personal loyalty to President Bush and, according to some reports, by their views on Roe v. Wade, rather than by their ability to do the job.

Speaking of Iraq, let’s also not forget that country’s failed reconstruction: the Bush administration handed billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to politically connected companies, companies that then failed to deliver. And why should they have bothered to do their jobs? Any government official who tried to enforce accountability on, say, Halliburton quickly found his or her career derailed.

There’s much, much more. By my count, at least six important government agencies experienced major scandals over the past eight years — in most cases, scandals that were never properly investigated. And then there was the biggest scandal of all: Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into invading Iraq?

Why, then, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?

One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn’t there be some penalty for the Bush administration’s politicization of every aspect of government?

Alternatively, we’re told that we don’t have to dwell on past abuses, because we won’t repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration’s political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won’t do it all over again, given the chance?

In fact, we’ve already seen this movie. During the Reagan years, the Iran-contra conspirators violated the Constitution in the name of national security. But the first President Bush pardoned the major malefactors, and when the White House finally changed hands the political and media establishment gave Bill Clinton the same advice it’s giving Mr. Obama: let sleeping scandals lie. Sure enough, the second Bush administration picked up right where the Iran-contra conspirators left off — which isn’t too surprising when you bear in mind that Mr. Bush actually hired some of those conspirators.

Now, it’s true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again.

Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.

And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.

The Leader isn't protecting us and keeping us safe

I could not have put this any better than Glenn Greenwald. 1) The President refuses to sign an extension to FISA because he doesn't get EVERYTHING he wants, i.e., retroactive immunity for his pals at the telecoms who likely illegally collected information on you and me; 2) He lets it expire... holding his breath until he turns blue... but saying it's "our fault" or "the Democrats" fault; and 3) FURTHER... he instructs the Republican house members to vote against extension of the FISA Act !!!!

It's no one's fault if we're less safe than this President's. And it's HIS administration (no one else's) where planes were flown into buildings even WITH advance warning from our nation's security people... he continued to read a book to an elementary class while it was all happening; he let Bin Laden escape and continues to let him live in the hills of Pakistan. YET he tells us Armageddon is coming. Perhaps if he could make one correct decision based on the ACCURATE information he was given ahead of time.

I hope the House Democrats have the fortitude to hold their ground, unlike some of the House Democrats.(Keystone)

Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com
Saturday February 16, 2008 11:45 EST

(updated below - Update II - Update III)
According to the President and his followers, we will be -- as of the stroke of midnight tonight -- no longer safe, no longer protected, no longer snug and secure in the strong and loving arms of our Federal Government. That's because the Protect America Act -- a law which has only existed for six months yet is now indispensable to America's ability to survive and avoid being slaughtered by the Terrorists -- expires tonight.

The President himself this morning dramatically intoned: "At the stroke of midnight tonight, a vital intelligence law that is helping protect our nation will expire." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gravely pointed out: "What will happen at midnight tonight is much more significant than stump speeches, steroids or superdelegates. On Sunday, the terrorist tracking program . . . no longer will be fully operational." National Review warrior and all-around tough guy Andy McCarthy fretted: "When the Clock Strikes Midnight, We Will Be Significantly Less Safe."

This is one of the most bizarre propaganda dramas ever, even when weighed against other Bush Terrorism propaganda dramas of the past. There is one reason, and one reason only, that the Protect America Act expired. Its name is "George W. Bush." That is who refused to agree to the Democrats' offer to extend the law by 21 days (or longer), then repeatedly threatened to veto any such extension ("US President George W. Bush on Wednesday vowed to veto another temporary extension of a domestic spying law"), then directed the always-obedient House Republicans to vote unanimously against the extension, which they (needless to say) did. This vital-to-our-safety piece of legislation expired only because George W. Bush repeatedly blocked its extension.

It's just that simple.

All of the right-wing war cheerleaders who will be rendered sleepless as of midnight tonight, petrified that the Muslims who normally lurk menacingly on their corners will now be free to spring attacks since we now live under FISA (1978-8/2007) rather than the PAA (8/2007-2/2008), have only the Warrior-Protector Commander-in-Chief to blame for making us all so very "unprotected and unsafe." And George W. Bush's (absurd) claim this morning that, as of midnight tonight, "it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attacks" amounts to a confession that he has deliberately chosen to make us all Unsafe because he is the one who single-handedly ensured the death of this Vital Intelligence Tool. This is an extremely straightforward, clear and indisputable fact which even our national press corps ought to have no trouble conveying.

The House Strikes Back

(From Greetings: FINALLY! And God Bless, Silvestre Reyes for defending the rights of Americans... again... finally. Below, from Dan Froomkin's washintonpost.com blog)

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.comFriday, February 15, 2008; 2:02 PM

After years of going belly-up before President Bush, particularly on matters of national security, Democrats in one chamber of Congress yesterday apparently decided they'd had about enough.

Defiantly rejecting what they called Bush's fear mongering, House Democrats refused to vote on a broad surveillance law their Senate colleagues had sent them the day before.

And, for good measure, they voted to hold Bush's chief of staff and former counsel in contempt.Several Democrats said yesterday that many in their party wish to take a more measured approach to terrorism issues, and they refused to be stampeded by Bush. 'We have seen what happens when the president uses fearmongering to stampede Congress into making bad decisions,' said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). 'That's why we went to war in Iraq.'

"White House officials and their allies were angry that the Democrats did not 'blink,' as one outside adviser said."

The back and forth between the Hill and the White House yesterday was bitter.

Here, for instance, is a letter to Bush from Silvestre Reyes, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: "Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration's warrantless surveillance program. . . .

"If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don't have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations -- including al Qaeda -- that have gained strength since 9/11. . . .

"I, for one, do not intend to back down -- not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

"We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won."

Two Questions for Senator Clinton (and one for the Post-Gazette... or MSNBC)

I don't usually state my preferred candidates, but I will say mine dropped out of the running a while back. So at this point, I am concerned with democracy, truthfulness, and fair and honest campaigning.

I'm against superdelegates deciding the winner of the Democratic nomination, IF it goes against the popular vote.

However, since Senator Clinton has put me on her mailing list to ask for donations (daily), I would like SOME reporter, perhaps from MSNBC, to ask her two questions on which I have written to her(every time I get a donation request), but on which I have gotten no response. Ever.

1) When the Senate voted on whether or not to grant "retroactive immunity" to the telecoms, Obama and many other Democrats were there to oppose it. Unfortunately, some Democrats went along with the President, while still calling him a "bully". Poor babies. Not a lot of strength there, I'm sorry to say.

But where, also, is the strength in Hillary Clinton NOT showing up to vote against it? (Or for it if she feels that way.) I'd finally like to hear HER opinion on this issue. She's one of the Senators running for President. McCain and Obama are on the record. She's avoided answering it at every point.

2) While I'm at it, I'd like to hear her disavow Governor Rendell's comments on whether or not whites would vote for a black candidate in Pennsylvania. He's her campaign leader here and a pre-declared Hillary superdelegate - before the popular vote. It wasn't a comment that was asked for by the Post-Gazette reporters, they've said.

MSNBC had Governor Rendell on, but not any of the reporters present in the room... especially Tony Norman who wrote the follow up column 3 days later, calling attention to it (and also the only African-American in the room at the time.)

It was volunteered by Gov. Rendell, according to them, before he gave his state budget speech, which was his given reason for meeting with the P-G staff. He would have had to have known it would be reported. Or perhaps someone should ask the P-G staff if it was a question posed to him before his State budget speech, in which case, it's an opinion.

I would like to know whether it was a pre-determined "time bomb" to be dropped, or a question he was replying to.

In either case, I'd like to see Sen. Clinton disavow it as quickly as she called MSNBC to disavow similarly questionable comments by one of its reporters.

Fear Rules the Day

(Note from Greetings: A sad day... the Democrats split, Harry Reid folded, and Bush passed his "retroactive amnesty" for the telecoms in what has appeared to be illegal spying on Americans. If it wasn't then why was "retroactive immunity" needed at all?

It should be noted that Senator Obama (and our Democratic Senator Casey) voted against the immunity, while Senator McCain seems to have voted for it, and Senator Clinton was the only Senator "not present" for such an important vote. I can't put it any better than Dan Froomkin's Washingtonpost.com blog, below)

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com Wednesday, February 13, 2008; 12:14 PM

Democrats on the stump like to talk about hope and change, but on the Senate floor yesterday they once again succumbed to fear.

Eric Lichtblau writes in the New York Times: "After more than a year of wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory on Tuesday by voting to broaden the government's spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush's program of eavesdropping without warrants. . . .

"The outcome in the Senate amounted, in effect, to a broader proxy vote in support of Mr. Bush's wiretapping program. . . .

"Republicans hailed the reworking of the surveillance law as essential to protecting national security, but some Democrats and many liberal advocacy groups saw the outcome as another example of the Democrats' fears of being branded weak on terrorism.

"'Some people around here get cold feet when threatened by the administration,' said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the Judiciary Committee and who had unsuccessfully pushed a much more restrictive set of surveillance measures. . . .

"[W]ith Democrats splintered, [Sen. Chris] Dodd acknowledged that the national security argument had won the day. 'Unfortunately, those who are advocating this notion that you have to give up liberties to be more secure are apparently prevailing,' he said. 'They're convincing people that we're at risk either politically, or at risk as a nation.'"

Here are the two key votes: 18 Democrats joined with a united Republican voting bloc to reject an amendment that would have stripped the immunity provision from the bill; then 19 Democrats joined the Republicans to pass the bill.

James Rowley writes for Bloomberg about how Bush is heading to another "legislative victory by evoking fears of a new terrorist attack. . . .

"'Holding all the Democrats together on this, we've learned a long time ago, is not something that's doable,' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters."

Paul Kane writes in The Washington Post that the vote was "a key victory" for the White House.

The "Senate Democrats' split on immunity echoes past party divisions over national security issues, including how strongly to confront Bush on the tools the administration uses to target suspected terrorists and their allies."

The bill isn't home-free quite yet.

Kane writes: "The Senate's action, days before a temporary surveillance law expires Friday, sets up a clash with House Democrats, who have previously approved legislation that does not contain immunity for the telecommunications industry. The chambers have been locked in a standoff over the immunity provision since the House vote Nov. 15, with President Bush demanding the protection for the industry. . . .

"House leaders vowed again yesterday to oppose the telecom immunity provision until the White House releases more information about the controversial warrantless surveillance program it initiated shortly after the terrorist attacks."

In a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers took a tough line: "Although some of the requested materials have been provided to some Judiciary Committee members, much of the information has not, and it is crucial that this material be produced as promptly as possible so that Congress may fulfill its legislative and oversight responsibilities. Indeed, review and consideration of the documents and briefings provided so far leads me to conclude that there is no basis for the broad telecommunications company amnesty provisions advocated by the Administration and contained in the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill being considered today in the Senate, and that these materials raise more questions than they answer on the issue of amnesty for telecommunications providers.

In order to more fully understand and react to the Administration's request for broad-based and retroactive amnesty for telecommunications firms, who may be in a position to divulge information concerning misconduct by Administration officials, it is imperative that your provide this information to us as promptly as possible, as we have been asking for many months on numerous occasions."

But just how seriously does the Bush White House have to take such a demand from the Democratic Congress? History suggests: Not very seriously.

As Greg Miller writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Senior congressional aides said there was no clear path to a compromise on the issue. But a series of recent defections by moderate Democrats in the House raises prospects that the White House position -- or something close to it -- eventually may prevail."

The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage explains why the immunity provision is so significant. It is "a major step toward closing the last forum in which critics have challenged the operation's legality. . . .

"Although news of the program initially prompted a bipartisan uproar, congressional attempts to investigate it largely petered out. Then, in August 2007, with little prior debate, Congress hastily enacted the Protect America Act, which essentially legalized a form of the warrantless surveillance. . . .

"[P]rivacy advocates and critics of the administration's expansive theories of presidential power . . . have pushed the lawsuits against the telecoms in hope of winning a definitive ruling that the program was illegal, thereby keeping it from becoming a precedent for the future.

"'When an over-reaching executive wants to conduct illegal spying in secret, those companies are the only ones in a position to say "no" and ensure that the law is followed,' said Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Freedom Foundation. . . .

"'Therefore,' Bankston added, 'it's critical that when they fail to follow the law, they need to be held accountable -- to ensure that next time the government attempts to engage in illegal spying, those companies will say "come back with a warrant."'"

Siobhan Gorman writes in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "If the White House prevails in the final negotiations, it will hand Republicans a potent weapon for their 2008 campaign arsenal by showing that their party, even in its weakened state, can still beat Democrats on national-security issues."

Bush, not surprisingly, is keeping the pressure on. Yesterday, he released a written statement, praising the Senate for "a strong, bipartisan vote."

This morning came the hard sell, in an Oval Office appearance: "At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country," he said. "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."

Rejecting a Democratic proposal for another extension to attempt some reconciliation between the House and the Senate, Bush demanded that the House pass the Senate bill immediately.

And he specifically addressed the immunity issue: "In order to be able to discover enemy -- the enemy's plans, we need the cooperation of telecommunication companies. If these companies are subjected to lawsuits that could cost them billions of dollars, they won't participate; they won't help us; they won't help protect America.

Liability protection is critical to securing the private sector's cooperation with our intelligence efforts."

But is Bush really saying that without immunity, telecom companies will reject lawful orders in the future?

That presented with a warrant or certification stating that certain basic legal requirements have been met, they would refuse to "help protect America"? That's either over-the-top rhetoric -- or he holds the telecom companies in pretty low regard.

Reid (whose procedural calls as Senate leader made the passage of the bill nearly inevitable) responded with the following statement: "Today, President Bush continues his bullying. . . .

"Due to months of White House foot-dragging, the relevant House committees have only just gotten important documents related to whether the Bush Administration followed the law and the Constitution. They need some time to review and analyze them. We must not let this critical issue be resolved by White House bullying.

"Congress is prepared to extend current law -- the Protect America Act -- by any length in order for Congress to complete the in-depth analysis and negotiations necessary for a long-term law broadly supported by the American people. If the President chooses to veto a short-term extension -- as he said he would this morning -- the responsibility for any ensuing intelligence collection gap lies on his shoulders and his alone."

Scott Horton blogs for Harpers: "If things proceed on the course now set by the Bush Administration and its brainless collaborators, and the national surveillance state is achieved in short order, then future generations looking back and tracing the destruction of the grand design of our Constitution may settle on yesterday, February 12, 2008, as the date of the decisive breach. . . .

"On the key vote, the Republicans in the Senate continued to function in lock-step, as they have on almost all significant issues for the last seven years, while the Democrats fragmented. Their vote summed up everything that's wrong with Washington politics today. Fear and hard campaign cash rule the roost, and the Constitution is regarded as a meaningless scrap of parchment, indeed, a nuisance. . . .

"The Constitution was defeated yesterday, and it was defeated by a fateful coalition between brain-numbing fear tactics and money and the resources that money buys."

The Last Time - Bush's State of the Union and the Telecom's "Retroactive Immunity"

First of all, last week was George Bush's LAST State of the Union Address. I never saw so many autograph seekers as our Congresspeople, looking much like little kids as a baseball game. Except that George Bush has not been like A-Rod or Stan Musial (to go back a few years), and he's not made us the championship team we have been in the past.

You may not realize this , but as you read this, the Senate is debating whether or not to grant retroactive amnesty to the telecoms for "possibly" having listened in on your phone calls, e-mails... blogs like this...and more... and turning those records over to the NSA, CIA, and/or others.

If they didn't do it, then no retroactive amnesty is needed, is it? If they did... and you disagree...you can call your Senator to express your views on retroactive amnesty. You have until about Friday to do this. Otherwise, it's, as the saying goes, "fait a complit".

While I'm on all of the candidates mailing lists - both parties - I was made aware of this by John Edwards, who resigned from the campaign this week. This is not an endorsement... just information for you all to sift through.. and my only political blog for this site. And it is a question you may want to ask the current presidential candidates who are in the Senate.