William Jefferson Whiplash

Ok, just what the bloody hell is going on around the Capitol?

Last week, just last week, we had Alberto Gonzales threatening to ignore the First Amendment and take the unprecedented steps of prosecuting journalists. We had the DOJ claiming they didn't have the security clearances to investigate the NSA Spying issue. We had the SEC unable to move forward on tracking the money flow involved in the NSA due to actions taken by John Negroponte. We had the FCC, who wouldn't lift a finger. We had allegations of warrantless physical searches, indications that AT&T had provided access to our email and Rep James Sensenbrenner was starting to talk about allowing ISPs to track our website visits, meanwhile Alberto Gonzales is already doing it, law or no law.

This week, James Sensenbrenner says that the raid on William Jeffersons office has created a Constitutional Crisis and in response Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Meuller have both threated to resign if the papers taken from Jefferson's Office - in a bribery case - are returned? What!!?

Jane at Firedoglake is completely flabberghasted on this one.

To say I do not understand WTF is going on between the Justice Department, the OVP, the White House and Congressional Republicans in the William Jefferson affair would be an understatement. I doubt right now if many can claim to know what this weird dance is all about.

Abu Gonzales has never found a position so base he could not justify at Dubya's request -- from torture to illegal wiretapping to threatening journalists and rubber stamping all manner of unlimited executive overreach -- but he's finally drawing a line in the sand over returning documents seized in a bribery scandal?

Dennis Hastert has gleefully played marionette to perhaps the biggest crook in the House, Tom DeLay, and has happily facilitated the White House's efforts to hack off limbs of Congressional authority, but now he's ready to force a constitutional crisis defending a member of the Black Congressional Caucus?

Georgia10 thinks is all about self-preservation.

I think Georgia is right, and then some. But what I wonder just what does this very sudden about face on privacy and Constitutional issues do to the Republican Congresses previous position that pretty much anything the NSA and FBI wanted to do to snoop and spy on the American people was just honky dory.

"If you've done nothing wrong - you have nothing to worry about!"

Hmm... look who'se looking mighty worried now.

What this really portrays isn't really a sudden concern for the sanctity of the Fourth Amendment, the only sanctity they're trying to preserve is that of Congress within the confines of the Capitol. If the FBI can raid William Jefferson's office - even with a subpeona and search warrant - then they can raid Dennis Hastert's Office, or James Sensenbrenners or Bill (I'm still being investigated by the SEC) Frist's office.

I think this is a far nastier situation than we'd really recognized so far.

Bush aides were also worried about a war with the Republican House if the president did not act.

"If you tell the House to stick it where the sun don't shine, you're talking about a fundamentally corrosive relationship between two branches of government," the senior administration official said. "They could zero out funding; they could say, 'Okay, you can do subpoenas, so can we.' "

As a matter of fact, the House can do subpeonas - hell, they should have been doing subpeonas for the last three years. Imagine if you will, the prospect of a retaliatory subpeona raid on the White House for things like the still missing Jack Abramoff entry records, or the classified executive orders that granted the NSA authority to setup their secret rooms at AT&T?

This is of course why the President has decided to create a 45-Day cooling off period, by holding the documents under seal for that time. The last thing he wants is to truly piss-off the House which has been covering his ass for the last five years. And the last thing the House wants is for the Federal Election Commission to start really looking into all the lobbying money that has flowed from Saucy Jack Abramoff to Hammerin' Tom Delay and through the pockets of all but Three House Republicans. Tom may be gone, but his money trail lingers.

Just keep remembering, that these guys are so scared - they forgot that they were defending a Democrat. Considering the type of low-ball dirty pool bullshit they've been pulling over the last decade (and more) against Democrats -- they have to be piss-stain afriad of something being discovered either in Jefferson's papers (where did the money come from, who else received bribes!) or in their own papers if additional raids are likely to be authorized.

And I wonder, just how does all of this play in the "Heartland"?

Well over at Redstate - this is what they have to say.

Courtesy of Speaker Dennis Hastert who had a staffer write wrote this editorial regarding the seizure of documents from Rep. Jefferson's office. The editorial is so opaque, so utterly and completely devoid of any meaningful information that one wonders why the Speaker went through the trouble of actually writing it. Perhaps it is better or more accurate to say that the Speaker non-wrote the editorial, since a writing with so much fluff and so little substance practically negates itself.

Ouch! Not going over too well it would seem.

Vyan

The CIA's War on Bush

The other day Faux Gnus Commentator Mort Kondracke wrote that Bush Hatred has become a Threat to National Security, arguing that...

ENOUGH already! It's harmful enough that ideological conflict and partisan politics are preventing this country from solving its long-term challenges on health care, fiscal policy and energy. Now it's threatening our national survival.

I do not exaggerate. Bush-hatred has reached such intensity that CIA officers and other bureaucrats are leaking major secrets about anti-terrorism policy and communications intelligence that undermine our ability to fight Islamic extremism.

What Kondracke fails to realize is that it was the Bush Administration that turned on the CIA First, not the other way around. Not only are we at War with insurgents in Iraq -the Bush Administration is at War with insurgents with in the CIA and other agencies.

And in both cases, the insurgents are winning.

Now just why would people at CIA be pissed beyond words at the Bush Administration? What ever could be under their craw? Could it be the fact that high ranking members of the Bush administration outed one of their NOC's (by the name of Valerie Plame-Wilson), and put every agent and asset linked to their WMD tracking operation Brewster-Jennings in grave mortal danger?

The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.

A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.

"That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said.

Needless to say, rank and file members of the CIA felt this was a Serious Betrayal.

HEMMER: Larry, tell me, what's the damage, though. Be specific, as best you can right now. Have lives been lost? Have people been sacrificed?

JOHNSON: I don't know if lives have been lost yet, but we have to start with the damage to Mrs. Wilson. Her life has been put at risk. The people that she was working with overseas who were spies, they are potentially at risk. You could potentially have people dead because of this. But the odds of finding that out as far as the CIA coming forth and detailing it, we are not likely to hear that because they have to protect the sources and methods.

And then of course you had the attempt by the Administration scapegoat the CIA for the lack of WMD's in Iraq - there has even been an individual CIA agent who has sued the government for covering up the truth about Iraq's lack of WMDs.

WASHINGTON, July 31 - The Central Intelligence Agency was told by an informant in the spring of 2001 that Iraq had abandoned a major element of its nuclear weapons program, but the agency did not share the information with other agencies or with senior policy makers, a former C.I.A. officer has charged.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court here in December, the former C.I.A. officer, whose name remains secret, said that the informant told him that Iraq's uranium enrichment program had ended years earlier and that centrifuge components from the scuttled program were available for examination and even purchase.

The officer, an employee at the agency for more than 20 years, including several years in a clandestine unit assigned to gather intelligence related to illicit weapons, was fired in 2004.

In his lawsuit, he says his dismissal was punishment for his reports questioning the agency's assumptions on a series of weapons-related matters. Among other things, he charged that he had been the target of retaliation for his refusal to go along with the agency's intelligence conclusions.

Similar claims have since been brought forward by 27-year CIA vet Ray McGovern as he directly challenged Sec Def Rumsfeld.

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were.
RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and -
QUESTION: You said you knew whe
re they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.
RUMSFELD: My words -- my words were that -- no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second.

Also these same points have been made by former CIA European Chief Tyler Drumheller.

"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure. It's an intelligence failure. This was a policy failure," Drumheller tells Bradley.

Josh Marshall on Drumheller.

Drumheller's account is pretty probative evidence on the question of whether the White House politicized and cherry-picked the Iraq intelligence. So why didn't we hear about any of this in the reports of those Iraq intel commissions that have given the White House a clean bill of health on distorting the intel and misleading the country about what we knew about Iraq's alleged WMD programs? Think about it. It's devastating evidence against their credibility on a slew of levels. Did you read in any of those reports -- even in a way that would protect sources and methods -- that the CIA had turned a key member of the Iraqi regime, that that guy had said there weren't any active weapons programs, and that the White House lost interest in what he was saying as soon as they realized it didn't help the case for war?

And then there's CIA Officer Paul Pillar.

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

Kondracke is at least partially correct - current and former members of the CIA are in the midst of a veritable Jihad against the Bush Administrations and it's campaign of lies. And can you blame them?

Kondracke Continued...

Would newspapers in the midst of World War II have printed the fact that the United States had broken German and Japanese codes, enabling the enemy to secure its communications? Or revealed how and where Nazi spies were being interrogated? Nowadays, newspapers win Pulitzer Prizes for such disclosures. In Congress and in much of the media, the immediate reaction to news that the National Security Agency was intercepting international terrorist communications was not to say, "Good work - and how can we help?" Rather, it was to scream about a "domestic spying" scandal, as though Richard Nixon were back in the White House and tapping the telephone of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

John Dean's "Worse then Wategate" not withstanding, we don't need Tricky Dicky back from the grave since we now have Gen. Michael Hayden as our brand new just confirmed CIA director for that.

Before him we had Porter Goss, who during his short year and a half stint conducted a veritable witch-hunt for potential leakers (and anyone who disagreed with Bush Admin policy) and came up only with a retiring Inspector General Mary McCarthy who had no direct access to the information for which she was accused of leaking and fired. (I smell yet another wrongful termination suit in the offing...)

But no sooner than we have Goss plug up one potential leak (which apparent isn't a leak at all) just as he's rapidly ushered out the door - a hasty exit caused in all likelyhood due to his connections to "Dusty" Foggo and Fornigate - do we have further leaks springing from the NSA itself in the form of Russell Tice (who was scheduled to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committe Last Week and claims what we've heard so far is just the "Tip of the Iceberg") and from AT&T in the form of Mark Klein (whose information indicates that the NSA isn't just tracking phone calls, it's tracking Email and Website access too!)

Not to mention the revelation that President Bush Personally Ordered classified information to be leaked, simply to make political points and perpetuate a lie, which like the claims of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda had been disproven long before the War, but continued to appear in the President's statements and speeches.

If I had a score-card handy I would say that so far it's CIA/Leakers/Whistle-blowers Ten - Bush Admin Zero.

And the leaks are still coming - like a broken water main - while the Bush admin has so far caught no one. With Alberto Gonzales now threatening to prosecute Journalists for revealing classified information, the truth is that if they seriously go down that road they would have to start with ROBERT F-ing NOVAK, who was warned away from publishing the Plame Story by the CIA itself, and did it anyway.

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to "asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name."

Personal Note to Bob: If he'd told you that "her life would be in danger" he would have been admitting that she was a covert operative -- and that fact was classified! He told you "DON'T PRINT IT" - he shouldn't have had to draw you a freaking map, dumb ass! Couldn't Take a Hint, coudja?

The fact is if Gonzales is going to frog-march James Risen or Dana Priest - they he'd better be sharing a cell with Novak or Bushco will be shredded for making any such prosecutions partisan in the extreme! And if Novak goes down, how's 'ole Turd Blossom gonna hold up? How 'bout the Veep and his little notes in the margins on Plame?

They do this and they'll burn their own house down in the process.

The thing we have to remember is that if CIA and NSA agents and officers are the ones providing this information to the press and congress in order to put the breaks on the lawlessness of the Bush Administration - it's very unlikely that they're ever going to catch any of these people since it's their JOB to keep secrets and be able to share information without it being detected - even by each other.

Right now - my bets are all on the CIA guys (and gals) in this battle.

It's also heartening to note that many of these whistle-blowers, like Tice, are Republicans. They understand that this issue isn't one of partisanship - it's one of law and order.

If we do eventually succeed at winning the War on Terruh using the methods supported by Kondracke - if we succeed in shredding our own Constitution into confetti - doesn't it make our attempts to spread Democracy ultimately futile? If our Democracy can be so thoroughly currupted and flawed by the pressures of terrorism - how can the fledgling Pseudo-Democracy of Iraq or Afghanistan stand a chance?

The only thing that can protect and preserve the integrity of our Democracy, and even the Iraqi and Aghan Democracies - is for brave people to stand up and speak Truth To Power, regardless of the personal risks and consequences.

Such courage is what a Democracy is supposed to protect and nurture, not hunt down and destroy.

And we, here an d elsewhere, can let their efforts be ignored or allow them to be smeared by the likes of Kondracke and his Jackboot-licking ilk.

Vyan

Tom Delay (hearts) Stephen Colbert. No, really!

As pointed out by Thinkprogress, the Tom Delay defense fund has sent out a mass mailing criticizing the new Robert Greenwald film "The Big Buy: Tom DeLay's Stolen Congress". Greenwald appeared on Stephen Colbert for a mock grilling, and the Delay camp - not recognizing satire even when it's dripping on their shoes - have posted the video of the entire interview on the Official Defend Delay website claiming that Colbert "nailed" Greenwald during the interview.

How fucking dense can you get?

First, Texas lost the Dixie Chicks - now this? What's next?

From the Mass Mailing (emphasis mine, for comedic effect)...

Hollywood Liberal and Micheal Moore wannabe Robert Greenwald (known his attacks on Wal-mart and Fox News) crashed and burned on Comedy Central's The Colbert Report (watch it at http://www.defenddelay.com) when promoting his new attack on Tom Delay. He even admits their reason for producing the movie (and clearly Ronnie Earle's for participating) - to keep Republicans from gaining power in Congressional seats across the country. Tom Delay was successful in bringing legal and constitutional redistricting to Texas, and since Democrats couldn't win at the legislature or at the ballot box they used the only resources they had left - liberal Hollywood and a nutty, partisan DA knowledge of the facts and the law. The producers of this political mockumentary claim they are trying to put together a fair and balanced peice, yet what they put out is a peice of leftist propoganda with the cooperation of District Attorney Ronnie Earle.

When Stephen Colbert first question to Greenwald is "Who hates America more - you or Michael Moore?", the Delay camp actually think it's a serious question. Greenwald makes no pretense that his films aren't partisan. His documentary on Fox News (Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism) was partially funded by MoveOn.org. Far from being a "Hollywood Insider" Greenwald as about as much of an independant film-maker as you're ever likely to find. The Website Site for his film Wal-Mart: The High Price of Low Cost states the following:

While would-be Hollywood blockbusters book thousands of theaters months ahead of time jockeying for the best opening weekend, we're looking to book thousands of churches, family businesses, schools, living rooms, community centers, and parking lots. And we need your help to do it.

The only cost to you is $12.95 to purchase a DVD or VHS, and whatever you choose to spend on the screening/party yourself.

That's not exactly how MGM does it I think.

No Red Carpet. No appearance by Brangelina or the latest starlett of this quarter hour. And No appearance by D-lister Kathy Griffin making fun of them while Joan Rivers bitches them out for their tacky wardrobe. Nope. Nada. Zip.

Nearly all of Greenwald's films have been Direct to DVD releases, not screening at the Cinerama Dome opposite Cruisazy's MI:III!! And they've nearly all been partisan, particularly his film "Trilogy" Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election, Unconstitutional: The War on our Civil Liberties and Uncovered: The War In Iraq

The reaction from the right to Greenwald's film is quite like the reaction to the Al Gore film "An Inconvenient Truth" . When asked if he would be watching it President Bush responded with "...Doubt it".

Right, the President shouldn't be informed or anything.

But let's not forget that Right-wing has plenty of stars to make intriuging movies. I mean, c'mon they've got Jessica Simpson. Yeah...uh ok. And they can expect plenty of nuanced political analysis from the next movies by Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis and Ah-nald. (just as soon as his ass gets kicked out of office) Y'know - political views like "Me Punch - you Fall Down!".

Nice, wholesome, balanced films.

In it's constant state of paranoia, the right sees every film or even every statement that doesn't support their worldview as an attack.

In his diary yesterday on the Anatomy of an Annoying Conservative codemorse hit the nail on the head when he pointed out:

Reason #2: Conservatives are always the embattled, underdog minority.

The conservatives are underrepresented in film! They don't control Hollywood the way that they control Washington! Something must be done!

There were at least four "liberal" films released last year and we were forced at gunpoint to see and discuss them! They must be destroyed!

Does that sound ridiculous to anyone else?

So embattled are they, that now they believe Stephen Colbert and his Comedy Show on Comedy Central is a legitmate ally?

If this is what the former "Hammer" has sunk to, latching on to imaginary supporters, I think things just might start to look up in DC-ville.

For more information about Robert Greenwald and his films and tv work (which includes the ACLU Freedom Files), visit http://www.robertgreenwald.org

Vyan

GAO Says: Snooping not just for Phone Records Anymore

Well, in the last couple weeks we've had quite a dust-up over the NSA data-mining phone numbers and call times from tens of millions of Americans. But really, what damage can having just a phone number cause without having any more information - like your name, address or credit report?

Just keep feeling that good about that for a few more seconds, it won't last. Business Week Reports.

The Departments of Justice, State, and Homeland Security spend millions annually to buy commercial databases that track Americans' finances, phone numbers, and biographical information, according to a report last month by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. Often, the agencies and their contractors don't ensure the data's accuracy, the GAO found.

But certainly are they're restrictions, like FISA or other warrants that would limit where and how the government can access our private information? Apparently not if they happen to have a blank check ready.

Buying commercially collected data allows the government to dodge certain privacy rules. The Privacy Act of 1974 restricts how federal agencies may use such information and requires disclosure of what the government is doing with it. But the law applies only when the government is doing the data collecting.

"Grabbing data wholesale from the private sector is the way agencies are getting around the requirements of the Privacy Act and the Fourth Amendment," says Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington and a member of the Homeland Security Dept.'s Data Privacy & Integrity Advisory Committee.

Oh, goodie. No more of that pesky Forth Amendment stuff.

I'm not sure If I'm more alarmed by their end-run around the Fourth, or that fact that various companies are willing to sell this information period. If they can sell it to the government they can sell it to telemarkers, or direct mail companies. Only in this case, you might wind up with the FBI at your door instead of Publishers Clearing House.

Let me just also point out that the NSA Datamining story itself is not just about phone records. Although no government agency or source has yet stepped forward to either confirm or refute the story reported by USA Today, it appears that Wired Magazine (as noted by this diary here) has decided to release a set of secret AT&T documents which indicated that the electronic snooping being done at their San Francisco Officers involve taps into their Internet Backbone, not their records of phone calls made.

Based on what we've seen, Wired News disagrees [with AT&T]. In addition, we believe the public's right to know the full facts in this case outweighs AT&T's claims to secrecy.

As a result, we are publishing the complete text of a set of documents from the EFF's primary witness in the case, former AT&T employee and whistle-blower Mark Klein -- information obtained by investigative reporter Ryan Singel through an anonymous source close to the litigation. The documents, available on Wired News as of Monday, consist of 30 pages, with an affidavit attributed to Klein, eight pages of AT&T documents marked "proprietary," and several pages of news clippings and other public information related to government-surveillance issues.

So we've got what - Phone, Finances, Biographical Data, Internet Sites and Email - anything left? It sounds like if you want to keep your private discussions with your doctor private you'll have to do with a carrier pigeon or else in person (like in a nice, dark secluded parking lot while wearing a stylish trench-coat and hat ensemble from the Abramoff Collection) from now on.

That is unless the Government decides to cut your Doc a cashiers check.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

Other Breaking News of Note Today :

New York Daily News - Two CIA Agents Claim that "Scooter" Libby Lied to the Grand Jury about Valerie Plame. The agents claim that Scooter was informed of Valeries CIA Status over a month before the New York Times Column by her husband Joseph Wilson, which disputed White House claims regarding Iraq appeared in July of 2003.

Slate - A Federal Judge in Virginia threw out a case filed by German citizen, Khalid el-Masri, who claims he was mistakenly kidnapped, drugged, confined and tortured as part of the Bush Administration "Extradinary Rendition Program". The Judge claimed that the case infringed on the Government's Right to protect "State Secrets"!!! (This is exactly the scenario I predicted in my recommended Diary on General Hayden two days ago.

Both of these stories are relevant, they both show just how far those who blatantly violate the law under the guise of th Government will go, and just how much cover they might expect to receive from a friendly Federalist Judiciary.

Even though we now have this data from Business Week and Wired - it still might not ultimately amount to much unless these issues can get a fair hearing in court.

Vyan

One Consistent Meme for Victory in November

There are practically an avalanche of issues which the Bush Administration and Congress have created which should be all rights send them packing this year - but many of us felt that way in 2004 and look what happened?

Since then things have clearly grown worse. We have the various NSA scandals (which Bush supporters still consider a strength), we've had the Katrina disaster followed by the FEMA disaster. We've had the Terri Schiavo debacle. Scooter Libby's been indicted. Tom Delay has been indicted and left the Congress. Jack Abramoff indicted and convicted. Duke Cunningham indicted and convicted. David Safavian indicted and convicted. President Bush's polls have bottomed out at 29%, while Congress has been as low as 23% in recent months.

But it's still not enough, not nearly.

What do the polls say?

The American People are not happy with George W. Bush.

Newsweek: "Since George W. Bush was reelected to a second term in 2004, has your opinion of his performance in office gotten better, worse, or stayed about the same?" - Worse 48%- Same 47% - Better 4%

USA Gallup: "Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think it applies or doesn't apply to George W. Bush. How about [see below]?"

"Picks good people for key leadership positions" - Applies 41% -Doesn't Apply 56%

"Is honest and trustworthy" - Applies 41% - Doesn't Apply %56

CNN : "Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think it applies or doesn't apply to George W. Bush. How about [see below]?"

"Competent" - Applies 47% - Doesn't Apply 47%

"Strong and decisive leader" - Applies 46% - Doesn't Apply 51%

"Honest and Trustworthy" - Applies 40% - Doesn't Apply 55%

But apparently not so unhappy that they yet want to see him removed from office (at least not according to Fox)

Fox News: "Regardless of how you plan to vote, if the Democrats win this year's congressional elections do you think it would be right for them to try to impeach President Bush over the Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction, or not?" - Not RIght 62% - Right 30%.

This would seem to indicate that making the November elections a referendum on impeachment, is not exactly the best path to follow. It might be possible after some intense investigation of what the bloody same hill has been going on in the White House the last fives years, but not yet. So far - thanks the the stonewalling, the case hasn't been made.

We have to realize that the ultimate solution to the lawlessness of George W. Bush will probably come from the courts, not from Congress. Particularly not from a Republican congress.

But what about Congress itself?

CNN: "Do you think the Republicans in Congress are more financially corrupt, or are the Democrats in Congress more financially corrupt?" - Republicans 40% - Democrats 15%

Newsweek: "Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?" - Satisfied 23% - Dissatisfied 71% -

ABC : "Overall, which party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years? - Democrats 50% - Republicans 36% -

This dissatisfaction doesn't seem to be pointed at any one particular issue, but instead is an overall indictment of how Congress has performed, particularly in reining in the President. They may not want him impeached, but neither do they want him to run-amok.

The one thing that Democrats need to drive home is the fact that this Republican Congress and President can not be trusted with control of our government.

Repeat it with me...

People Who Don't Believe In Government, can not be trusted to RUN it properly, except into the ground!

Democrats need to burn this into their forehead - they need to mention it in dairy after diary, blog after blog. Each and every Democratic Leader who goes on TV has to chant this like a mantra. "A Government can't be effectively run by people who hate Government". "Government is not the Problem, Believe that it is - is the problem". A prime tenet of post-Reagan Conservatism has been the idea that "Government is the Problem". Government is your enemy. Government must be stopped. Well, they've succeeded i stopping the government from being able to effectively prosecute the war on terrorism. We haven't caught Osama. We're losing control in both Afghanistan and Iraq. They stopped the government from doing what it could to protect the people of the gulf coast.

We have to recognize that we aren't just fighting George Bush, we aren't even just fighting the Republicans in congress - we're fighting the Doctrine that causes the government to breakdown in it's duty to serve the will and needs of the people..

Governement is by no means the solution to all problems, far from it. It is merely a tool - one that can be used wisely, that can heal and protect or one that can be used only as a weapon for destruction, fear-mongering and pain.

The latter is what the Conservatives who hold a strangehold on power have wrought. There are no two-ways about it, they control the Executive, Legislative and most of the Judicial Branches. Democrats and democratic ideals have had little to nothing to do with the results we've seen so far, and can only expect to get worse.

Democrats believe in a government that is effective, but not expensive or intrusive. It was only under Democratically passed budget of 1994 that the deficit finally began to be addressed and eventually led to a record surplus. It was only under a Democratic leadership that the total size of the Federal Government shrank by 10% while the rate of crime dropped by 15% and abortions by an even greater amount.

Are Democrats patriots? Do they not wish to fight terrorism with every (legal) means at our disposal? Of course they do.

Do they have an answer to every possible question and a response to every possible situation that might arrise? Of course not, anyone who thinks they have all the answers before even being asked the question is a fool or worse - a liar.

But one thing is for certain - they certainly can't make things any worse.

Vyan

November 06: A Re-Defining Moment

2006 is looking to be a watershed year. The year when Democrats once again reemerge on the political stage, not as the red-headed step child to be soundly batted on the ear -- but as a serious force in our national government. Or will they?

From Today's Washington Post.

Some veterans of the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress see worrisome parallels between then and now, in the way once-safe districts are turning into potential problems. Incumbents' poll numbers have softened. Margins against their Democratic opponents have narrowed. Republican voters appear disenchanted. The Bush effect now amounts to a drag of five percentage points or more in many districts.

The changes don't guarantee a Democratic takeover by any means, but they are creating an increasingly asymmetrical battlefield for the fall elections: The number of vulnerable Democratic districts has remained relatively constant while the number of potentially competitive Republican districts continues to climb.

Despite the somewhat rosey projections of the WaPo, Democrats have no reason get get cocky, according to thereisnospoon they have completely failed to take a stand.

Some Democratic leaders have been bold (Conyers, Feingold, Boxer, Jackson-Lee and occasionally Kerry), others of the squishy DLC bent are far more cautious - akwardly straddling the middle -(Clinton), while a small minoritity have been little more than Republican-Lite (Leiberman).

But unlike the Lock-step manuever Republicans have perfected since the Attack of the Rowdy Gingrichites in '94, moving the Democratic Caucus in a single direction has frequently been like herding cats. Republicans are precise and clear on what they want. Lower Taxes. A Strong Military (In spending if not in actual practice). More Abortion Restrictions (But little effort for Pre-natal, Foster care or Adoption). Lower Taxes. More Acknowledgement of Faith in the public sphere. Fewer Gay Rights (If not fewer Gays, period). English First (And Only). Fewer illegals workers (but nice low prices for fruit and textiles products). Bigger Business. (Lower wages) Bigger Jails. More Oil (Less Breathable Air). Did I mention Taxes?

Even on sites such as this or DU, finding consensus on specific policy initiatives is not always easy.

Democratic thought is not monolithic, so when the question comes "What do Democrats want..." they invariably fumble it. When John Stewart asked Howard Dean this very question he showed him a door-hanger. A DOOR-HANGER (for voluanteers to leave behind as they canvas the neighborhood) with a list of the (Secret) Democratic Agenda. Which, in case you're wondering, can be found here at http://www.democrats.org/...

It contains six bullet points.

Honest Leadership and Open Government We will end the Republican culture of curruptions and restore a government as good as the people it serves

Real Security We will protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies

Energy Independance We Will create a cleaner stronger America by reducing our dependance on foreign oil.

Economic Prosperity and Educational Excellence We will create jobs that will stay in America by restoring oppurtunity and driving innovation.

A Health Care System that works for Everyone We will join 36 other industrialized nations by making sure that everyone has access to affordable healthcare.

Retirement Security We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American.

Not exactly earth shattering stuff.

If you ask the RNC, they seem to know exactly what the Dems want -- to "Impeach George Bush and raise your taxes". Here's Brit Hume of Faux Gnus on the Dems taking Control.

Michigan Congressman John Conyers, who would head up the House Judiciary Committee should the Democrats retake the house, has already held a mock hearing on impeaching President Bush.

This "blistering" attack has already forced Conyers to back-peddle in the WaPo.

As Republicans have become increasingly nervous about whether they will be able to maintain control of the House in the midterm elections, they have resorted to the straw-man strategy of identifying a parade of horrors to come if Democrats gain the majority. Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

I will not do that.

Instead, Conyers promises to setup a bipartisan commission to study and investigate the various failures of the Administration. Again, not exactly earth shattering.

I think we as a nation have a right to expect more. Much more.

Should George W. Bush and Dick Cheney be impeached for gross malfeasance before, during and after 9-11, the Iraq War, the CIA Leak Scandal, Extra-odinary Rendition, Secret Prisons, Indefinate Detention, Torture, Hurricane Katrina, the growing NSA espionage scandal and pissing on 750 laws?

If you ask that question to most Democrats (not on Capital hill, actual Rank and File Democrats) the answer would be a resounding "HELL YES!"

Still, I think Conyers approach to this may be dead on target. If Democrats come screaming into Congress with pay-back for the last 6 years on their mind - they are destined to fail.

I'm not saying that they might not successfully Impeach and possibly even Remove President Bush from office -- I'm saying that if they do this without first successfully making the case to all the American people, Democrat and Republican alike, that this Administration and the Republican Caucas have become a veritable Criminal Enterprise intent on amassing power while raiding our treasury, and exploiting the blood and spirit of our military in the process - the entire effort will ultimately be for naught.

THIS. ADMINISTRATION. MUST. BE. STOPPED.

But we don't need to stage a partisan witch-hunt (ala the Starr/Clinton fiasco).

They must be stopped not because of what they've already done, they must be stopped because of the danger the precedent they've set. The checks and balances of our government must be repaired and restored simply because future administrations (Yes, possibly even Democratic ones) weilding the kind of power that Bush has claimed could destroy the very fabric of our nation.

The Unitary Executive Theory must be permenently quashed as a demented Constitutional aberration that dangerously tips the balance of power completely out of whack.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, a nation of ideals which our bounded by the articles and amendments of our Constitution. Bush has turned our laws inside out and wiped his ass with the Constitution while this Republican Congress aided and abetted him. Genuflecting at his every abuse.

Ask any Republican friend of yours, if you still have any - would they "Want President Hillary Clinton or President Al Gore to have the kind of power that Bush is nowing claiming with the NSA and 750 signing statements directly contradicing Federal Law?"

If they answer the question honestly, I think they just might surprise even themselves. It's a defining question that goes beyond party affiliation, Red or Blue State, Left-Coast or Fly Over. The answer will determine exactly what kind of nation the United States will be for the next several generations.

If Democrats take over Congress - they've have to put this question to the nation. They'll have to create a Re-defining moment where the country makes a decision about where we are going to go from here -- are we going to continue to excuse and cover-up incompetence and malfeasance by the executive simply because he is the "Commander-in-Chief" and must be honored in a time (endless) of war? Or are we going to insist on something greater, something more noble - that our leaders actually be worthy of their role and duties, and that if they fail they are held accountable in order to protect the nation and the world from the chaos created by their incompetence and mendacity?

I think we can ask, no - demend, for nothing less. Our duty as citizens requires it.

That Re-defining Moment is not yet upon us. Democrats do not need to declare yet whether they are pro or against impeachment and removal - only that they support "Accountability" and restoring our Constitutional checks and balances.

But it's coming - and soon.

Vyan

Hayden and the Closed Session Tango

During his hearings yesterday there were several times that DCI nominee Michael Hayden chose not to answer the question posed - and instead deferred to respond in Closed Session. Certainly we have to respect that certain things simply can't be discussed in public, but it is fascinating to note exactly which things isn't it? I mean if a Senate asked a question where the answer was clearly "No" - then basically the answer is "No", right? But if not - if the answer is possibly "Yes" or involves some more detailed explaination, then you get - Closed Session.

I admit this is a somewhat imperfection rule of thumb, but for the purposes of snark - I'm sticking with it.

So how many times and to which questions did Micheal Hayden respond this way during the public section of his hearing??

LEVIN: Is that the whole program?

HAYDEN: Senator, I'm not at liberty to talk about that in open session

LEVIN: I'm not asking you what the program is, I'm just simply saying, is what the president described publicly the whole program.

HAYDEN: Senator, all I'm at liberty to say in this session is what I was talking about, and I literally, explicitly said this at the press club, I am talking about the program the president discussed in mid-December.

LEVIN: And you're not able to tell us whether what the president described is the whole program?

HAYDEN: No, sir, not in open session. I am delighted to go into great detail in closed session.

Why can't he tell us whether the President is a bald-faced liar? Probably the fact that al Qaeda aren't the only targets - and the President is a bald-faced liar, but that just my opinion.
Translation: "There's much more to the Terrorist Surveillance Program than what the President has described so far."

Feinstein: Do you believe the Fourth Amendment contains a probable cause standard?

HAYDEN: It clearly contains a probable clause standard for warrants to conduct searches. There's the broader phraseology. And I've actually talked to some of my relatives who are in law school at the moment about the construction of the amendment, which talks in a broad sense about reasonableness, and then, after the comma, talks about the probable cause standards for warrants.

The approach we've taken at NSA is certainly not discounting at all, ma'am, the probable cause standard and need for probable cause for a warrant. But the standard that is most applicable to the operations of NSA is the standard of reasonableness -- you know, is this reasonable?

And I can elaborate a little bit more in closed session, but for example -- for example, if we have a technology that protects American privacy up to point X in the conduct of our normal foreign intelligence mission, it is reasonable, and therefore we are compelled, to use that technology.

Well, seeing as they aren't using those warrant things so much anymore -- why have probable cause when reasonableness will do? Exactly how the Fourth Amendment became a national security issue - I'm not entirely certain. Translation: "No."

FEINSTEIN: Has the administration sought -- or NSA sought Title 1 warrants from the FISA Court for the collection of telephone content? And has it sought pen register trap-and-trace device approval from the court for the collection of telephone records or transmittal information? HAYDEN: Ma'am, let me give you that answer in closed session. Just a slight discomfort. But I'll be happy to give it to you as soon as we get to closed session.

Translation: "Nope! We don need no stinkin' warrants!"

FEINSTEIN: Did individuals in the White House push for a broader and further-reaching surveillance program, including purely domestic calls without warrant... HAYDEN: No, ma'am...

FEINSTEIN: ... as was reported in last Sunday's New York Times?

HAYDEN: Yes, I understand. And I will give you just a touch more granularity in the closed session. But in open session, these were all discussions. Our views were -- NSA views -- were highly regarded, and there was never an argument over that issue.

Translation: "The issue was discussed with the administration - but NSA felt differently. The NSA lost. So did the American people."

FEINSTEIN: Is there a periodic review of what useful and actionable intelligence can be gathered through interrogations and debriefings of terrorists that have been held with no contact with Al Qaida or other groups for years? HAYDEN: Again, a more detailed in response in closed session. Let me just hold it for closed, ma'am. And I think..

The reality is some of these people will simply never be either released or tried - if they've been tortured their testimony is useless and prosecution impossible, and if they're high value targets they're far too dangerous to be released - particularly after they've been tortured. Translation: "Probably, but what does it matter?"

FEINSTEIN: On March 17th, 2005, Director Porter Goss stated to the Senate Armed Service Committee that waterboarding fell into, quote, "an area of what I will call professional interrogation techniques," end quote.

Do you agree with that assessment? Do you agree with Mr. Goss's statement that waterboarding may be acceptable?

If not, what steps have been taken or do you plan to take to correct the impression that may have been left with agency employees by Mr. Goss' remarks?

HAYDEN: Yes, ma'am. Again, let me defer that to closed session, and I would be happy to discuss it in some detail.

Feinstein just asked him a public relations question "how do you plan to correct the impression"- and he deffered to closed session? Translation: "Whether I correct the "impression" or not - it's Thumbs Up for Waterboarding!"

FEINSTEIN: Has the agency received new guidance from the Department of Justice concerning acceptable interrogation techniques since the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act? HAYDEN: Let me answer that in closed session, ma'am. But, again, I will be delighted to answer it for you.

This question was essentially asking have you updated your guidelines to eliminate torture since Congress Passed A Law requiring that you updated your guidelines to eliminate torture. Translation: "Not Bloody likely."

FEINSTEIN: The New York Times reported on November 9th, 2005, that in 2004, the CIA inspector general concluded that certain interrogation practices approved after the September 11th attacks did constitute cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment as prohibited by the Convention Against Torture.

Do you agree with the I.G.'s conclusion? And what corrective measures, in any, have been instituted in response to the I.G.'s findings?

HAYDEN: Ma'am, again: More detailing in closed session. I would have to learn more about the I.G.'s findings.

He doesn't know what the CIA inspector general concluded based on a publically known law, but it's still a security issue just to comment on it? Translation: "Fuck the Convention Against Torture. It's just some quaint International Law, my good friend Abu told me so..."

FEINSTEIN: Ambassador Negroponte and other intelligence officials have estimated that Iran is some years away from a nuclear weapons capability. How confident are you of these estimates? HAYDEN: Again, I would be happy to give additional detail in closed session. But I do want to say more about this with an open. Iran is a difficult problem. We call it a hard target. But I think it unfair to compare what it is we believe we know about Iran with what it is we prove to know or not know about Iraq.

Translation: "Iran is gonna Get Nuked, whether they have their own nukes in the next ten years or not."

HATCH: Now, if we had this program, let's say a year before 9/11, what effect would it have been on 9/11, do you believe? HAYDEN: I've said publicly -- and I can demonstrate in closed session, how the physics and the math would work, Senator -- that had this been in place prior to the attacks, the two hijackers who were in San Diego, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, almost certainly would have been identified as who they were, what they were and, most importantly, where they were.

What do you mean "would have been identified?" They were living with an FBI Informant. We knew who they were - you just didn't do anything about it. Translation: "I'm an Ass."

WARNER: What is it, when you hit that deck, are you going to do that was not being done, in your judgment, either according to law or otherwise?

(After some hemming and hawing)

HAYDEN: Frankly, I just want to look forward. I'll assess the situation and move on.
WARNER: And we want to rest assured, when we do fill that vacancy, whatever omissions -- omissions or otherwise -- were taking place to justify this, are corrected. And you'll assure us that that will be done.

HAYDEN: Yes, sir.

WARNER: Perhaps in closed session, you can...

HAYDEN: OK.

Translation: "Non-sequitor. Anybody got a Diet Tab?"

WARNER: What can you tell us, in open, will be some of your initial step to strengthen that collection of intelligence as it relates to Iran?

HAYDEN: Yes, sir, and you chose the right word. It's strengthening, rather than some sharp departure. The ambassador has appointed a mission manager for Iran, Leslie Ireland. Leslie has that task as her full-time job.

And what she's doing is not just inventorying what we're doing as a community but actually redirecting our emphasis as a community.

And in closed session, I'll give you a few more details

Translation: "Not bloody much."

WARNER: Now, if I understand it, earlier in this testimony you said that you fully intend -- that is the agency -- to comply with the basic standard of not involving in any cruel or inhuman or degrading -- fine -- treatment. I understand that. But there's a whole manual out here guiding the men and women in uniform. Should there not be a companion manual guiding the civilians who will be performing much of this task?

HAYDEN: Senator, speaking in generalities now and perhaps more detail in a closed session, absolutely.

Translation: "Ah...yeah, but that doesn't mean that they can't perform cruel or degrading treatment on them by simply redefined it into something that isn't physically possible without killing the subject!"

HAGEL: But we're going to need some guidance from you. Here's an opportunity, General Hayden, to lay some of that out, if you care to give us some of your thoughts on how do we rewrite a law that does what you need to do and protects the interest of our country as well.

HAYDEN: Yes, sir. Let me not get into specifics. If we need to, we can share some ideas in closed session.

Translation: "Let's not give the evil-doers our playbook on national television, even if we're just debating the possibilities - not actually re-writing it."

FEINGOLD: But that's not my question. And that wasn't Senator Bond's question. It's whether it's ever happened that any Americans have been targeted who weren't associated with Al Qaida. As a matter of fact, has it happened, despite the cautions...

HAYDEN: Sir, I'll give you a detail in closed session, all right?

Clearly, I think logic would dictate that if you're using a probable cause standard as opposed to absolute certitude, sometimes you may not be right.

Oh SHIT! Translation: "Oh SHIT!"

BAYH: Let me ask you this question then, General. Isn't that also the same standard that would apply under FISA? HAYDEN: Yes, sir.

BAYH: So why not use FISA then?

HAYDEN: I can get into...

BAYH: Don't you have to meet the same burden of proof no matter what?

HAYDEN: Yes, sir. I can get into more detail in closed session and point out some additional difficulties.

Because FISA requires the probable cause standard and the International Surveillance program is using the "reasonableness" standard which means sometimes you "get it wrong" and you wouldn't want fix that problem wouldn't you? Translation: "Because, I'm a total ass."

[Update: Feel free to offer your own translations, mine are by no means ment to be conclusive.]

Vyan

Hayden admits Bush political leaders trumped up WMD Intel

The main focus on today's confirmation hearings for Gen. Michael Hayden as Director of Central Intelligence have ostensibly been on the various and sundry NSA Scandals which have recently emerged, but Thinkprogress points out one section of his testimony which apparently cuts the Bush Admin to the quick on pre-Iraq War WMD claims.

Ever since AG Gonzales hinted during his Senate testimony that Bush may indeed have spied on domestic calls, the NSA have been an explosion waiting to go off. But Hayden's testimony today shows that the fuse has been quite a bit longer than previously foreseen.

Transcript:

Sen. LEVIN: Secretary of Defense for Policy, Mr. Feith, established an intelligence analysis, so within his policy office at the Defense Department. While the intelligence community was consistently dubious about links between Iraq and al Qaeda, Mr. Feith produced an alternative analysis asserting that there was a strong connection. Were you comfortable with Mr. Feith's office approach to intelligence analysis?

HAYDEN: No, sir, I wasn't. I wasn't aware of a lot of the activity going on, you know, when it was contemporaneous with running up to the war. No, sir, I wasn't comfortable.

Further commentary by Thinkprogress

What Hayden makes clear is that, despite Bush's assertion that the pre-war intelligence process "broke down," the false intelligence about Iraq's connection to al Qaeda was intentionally fabricated by political leaders, not intelligence analysts. Feith, Wolfowitz, and others in the Pentagon set up a stovepipe "to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership" to make the case for war. Hayden and other intelligence experts got steamrolled when it mattered most.

As has been repeatedly noted it was not a case where intelligence analyst had to be "intimidated" into changing their view -- people like Feith were running their own independent intelligence operation through the Defense Intelligence Agency and portions of the State Department. These people were intent to find the evidence they wanted and use each an every scrap they located - no matter how dubious it might have been - to promote the story that Iraq was an imminent threat.

This yet again shows why Sen. Pat Roberts has been delaying the Phase II portion of the WMD/intelligence investigation for over two years. It's why both the Robb-Silberman Commission and previous Senate investigations were prohibited from asking this very question -- the Administration already knows the answer.

Whether the various and sundries Special Access NSA programs currently underway are legal or not remain a hot topic. AT&T's attorney argues that they received a Special Letter from the Attorney General which legally authorized their cooperation in lieu of a Warrant. This is quite interesting since it appears the NSA refused to do exactly the same thing for QWEST when they asked for it.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. Attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events

This diary here points out how the NSA actually already had a more effective and much more responsible Clinton era program in place prior to 9/11, but that program was shutdown by -- General Michael Hayden.

As reported by the Baltimore Sun

WASHINGTON // The National Security Agency developed a pilot program in the late 1990s that would have enabled it to gather and analyze massive amounts of communications data without running afoul of privacy laws. But after the Sept. 11 attacks, it shelved the project -- not because it failed to work -- but because of bureaucratic infighting and a sudden White House expansion of the agency's surveillance powers, according to several intelligence officials.

The program the NSA rejected, called ThinThread, was developed to handle greater volumes of information, partly in expectation of threats surrounding the millennium celebrations. Sources say it bundled together four cutting-edge surveillance tools. ThinThread would have:

* Used more sophisticated methods of sorting through massive phone and e-mail data to identify suspect communications.

* Identified U.S. Phone numbers and other communications data and encrypted them to ensure caller privacy.

* Employed an automated auditing system to monitor how analysts handled the information, in order to prevent misuse and improve efficiency.

* Analyzed the data to identify relationships between callers and chronicle their contacts. Only when evidence of a potential threat had been developed would analysts be able to request decryption of the records.

An agency spokesman declined to discuss NSA operations.

Feel free to send any wingnut acquaintances you have this Baltimore Sun story whenever they claim - "We can't abide by the strict letter of the law and fight al Qaeda at the same time" or "Clinton did nothing to fight terrorism".

It may be very well that Hayden was "uncomfortable" with this decision just as he was with the actions of Feith et al in the pre-Iraq War run-up - but being a good little soldier, he did what he was ordered to do by his superiors (i.e. Cheney and Bush) He may be fairly candid now during his confirmation hearings, but he's also made it quite clear that he will do whatever it is that the Commander-in-Chief requires of him.

A pure "Yes, man" through and through - just like (General) Colin Powell who permanently shredded his own credibility for all time with his command performance before the UN in 2002.

Let us recall just another reason why Qwest was reluctant to participate in this program:

The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information -- known as "product" in intelligence circles, -- with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.

This naturally explains the thousands of bogus leads that the FBI was complaining about in January.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

FBI officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency, which was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of foreign-related phone and Internet traffic, that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. Some FBI officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

So we have the scenario that prior to the Iraq War the Bush Administration threw out good intelligence (such as Joe Wilson's) in favor of bad intelligence, a fact that has also been confirmed by 27 Year CIA vet Ray McGovern, former Colin Powell Chief of Staff Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, State Dept Intelligence Analyst Greg Theilman, former Pentagon Special Plans Aid Lt. Col Karen Kwaitkowski, former European CIA chief Tyler Drumheller and former CIA intelligence Officer Paul Pillar.

This is a clear and obvious pattern of behavior on their part and there no reasonable indication that it's going to end anytime soon. These issues (poor WMD intel and the avoidance of FISA) are linked by the same dangerous extralegal pathology.

In his response to the Hayden hearings so far, Christy at Firedoglake points to comments by Bruce Fein which seem to bear repeating.

The Bush Administration is doing everything it can to prevent any of the illegally collected data and information from being used in any courtroom context, because they do not want to have to face the consequences of a constitutional challenge to their failure to obtain a lawful warrant. Think about that for a moment -- Bruce Fein is no liberal, he is a very conservative Reagan Republican, having worked in the DoJ as Deputy Attorney General in the Reagan Administration.

And he is saying, out loud, that the Bush White House is avoiding constitutional scrutiny because they know -- they KNOW -- they will be shown to be what they are. Lawbreakers.

They realize that everything they've done to skirt the law and bypass judicial scrutiny would present them with a massive fruits of the poison tree catastrophe in a court of law. If the NSA is sharing it's data with the FBI - and we know damn well they are - they can not present that evidence in court, or even acknowledge that they used illegally gathered evidence to target a specific individual without that case being tossed out of the court on it's ear.

This road only leads one direction.

They simply aren't going to take these cases to court, except for "show trials" like Moussuaoui. They're going to use the FBI to do surveillance - then if they decide on a whim that the situation is serious enough, perform a rendition followed by indefinite detention of that subject - even if they happen to be an American Citizen - to the secret military gulag of their worst nightmare for a little bit of the ole' waterboarding. Without judicial review. Without trial. Without appeal. Without oversight. Without hope.

This is not a hypothetical, there are strong indications that it's already been happening -- and if it did, the last thing that would happen would be a paper trail.

The likelihood of them doing this to the "right" person is about as strong as the possibility that we're going to finally find those mobile labs "North, South, East and West somewhat of Tikrit and Baghdad" almost three years after the fact.

They invaded the Wrong Fucking Country for Christ sake... you think they're really going to care if they capture the wrong terrorist suspects?

The sad part is that this is pretty much common knowledge at this point -- and the resulting outrage (outside of highly Democratic circles) is practically nonexistent. This is how the Wingnut Brigade fights terrorism - no holds barred and wiping their ass with the Constitution as they storm through, Jackboots akimbo.

What and who are they going to mistake for an imminent threat next?

And how many more innocent people will suffer for it while the real terrorist laugh at our continued ineptitude?

[Update: Even short of my admittedly worst case scenario of unchecked renditions of American Citizens above, there is also the very real danger of thousands of FBI Files that have been generated from this practice. Remember when the Clinton White House inadvertently gained access to a several hundred FBI files due to a Secret Service Screwup? (They had used an out of date White House Access List) Magnify that situation by the order of thousands! Filegate: dogged the Clinton's for years with allegations that they planned to use these files against their political rivals - well guess whose got the files now, and just who are their rivals? That's right kiddies - Quakers, Peace-Mongers, Greenpeace, War Protestors, Journalist, Congress, and y'know - US!)

Vyan