Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !

Home Front: Politix

Most Congressmen told of easedropping program agreed with it

2005-12-23

As members of Congress seek more information about the eavesdropping program authorized by President Bush, their requests are being complicated by the fact that Congressional leaders in both parties acquiesced in the operation. Only the Senate Judiciary Committee, under Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, has pledged to hold hearings on the program, which was first publicly disclosed a week ago. Democrats are urging that the House and Senate Intelligence Committees conduct inquiries, but the Republicans who control those panels have not agreed to do so. Some Republicans are suggesting that it is disingenuous to complain now about the eavesdropping effort. "The record is clear; Congressional leaders at a minimum tacitly supported the program," Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the chairman of House Intelligence Committee, said this week. Mr. Hoekstra said Democrats should "attempt to understand why their leaders did not feel the same sense of outrage about the program" that some in the party are now expressing. Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has said only that he is "currently in discussions with Senate leadership to determine what form additional oversight should take." Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the committee, released a letter this week that he sent to Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 expressing concern about the program. But Senator Roberts issued a statement on Tuesday saying that he had "no recollection of Senator Rockefeller objecting to the program at the many briefings he and I attended together," and that "on many occasions Senator Rockefeller expressed to the vice president his vocal support for the program; his most recent expression of support was only two weeks ago." At least seven Democratic lawmakers are known to have been briefed about the program since its inception in 2001, and only two, Mr. Rockefeller and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, are known to have expressed written concern about it. A third, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the former Senate Democratic leader, said in an e-mail message on Thursday that he too had expressed "grave concern for this practice" of eavesdropping on American citizens inside the United States. Among the others, Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, acknowledged in a statement this week that she had been briefed about the program since 2003 and regarded it as "essential to U.S. national security." Ms. Harman also said, however, that she was "deeply concerned by reports that this program in fact goes far beyond the measures to target Al Qaeda about which I was briefed." Congressional aides from both parties said Thursday that their leaders were weighing a number of options for further inquiries into the matter. In the Senate, Mr. Specter and Mr. Roberts were said to be talking with Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, about a possible division of labor between their committees. But they said it was unlikely that any hearings would be held until Congress convenes again in late January. The program, authorized by President Bush, involves eavesdropping without warrants on international communications involving American citizens in the United States. Critics, including Mr. Specter, have expressed doubts about whether the program was legal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a question he says should be explored by the Judiciary Committee, even if there is a separate review by the Congressional intelligence panels. Among the options being weighed are parallel inquiries, in which the Judiciary Committee in the Senate would hold open hearings, beginning with testimony by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, while the Senate Intelligence Committee would hold closed hearings to explore the classified details of the intelligence-gathering operation. Another course proposed by some lawmakers would consolidate any inquiry so that it would be conducted jointly by the judiciary and intelligence panels. Members of Congress who were not previously briefed about the program have been far more vociferous in expressing opposition to it. One of them, Representative Rush D. Holt of New Jersey, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the administration had shown "absolute contempt for Congressional oversight by concealing, for years after the fact and from all but a tiny handful of House and Senate leaders, its use of the National Security Agency to spy on Americans." The White House has said the dozen or so briefings about the program it provided to a small group of Congressional leaders were intended to provide notification, not to seek the lawmakers' consent. None among the seven Republicans known to have been briefed have expressed any opposition to the program. The three Democratic members of Congress who have said publicly this week that they had objected to the program have said there was no indication that their objections were heeded. Ms. Pelosi, a former top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who is now the House Democratic leader, has said that she, like Mr. Rockefeller, expressed her concerns in a letter to the administration. But Ms. Pelosi has said that she cannot make the letter public until the administration agrees to declassify it. Mr. Daschle, in his e-mail message, said he had "expressed my concern during the briefing," rather than in written form, and declined to discuss the timing of his action. In addition to Ms. Harman, the Democrats who have said they did not express objections when they were briefed on the program include Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, and Bob Graham, the former Democratic senator from Florida who served as Intelligence Committee chairman. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, the former Democratic leader in the House, has not responded to telephone messages requesting comment. Ms. Harman, Mr. Reid and Mr. Graham have all suggested in recent days that they were not provided with a complete accounting of the program, and that they might have raised objections if they had understood its scope. The administration has said the surveillance program was limited to communications between the United States and points overseas, but Ms. Harman has expressed particular concern about "domestic-to-domestic surveillance" that technical experts say would almost certainly have occurred, in the form of telephone conversations or e-mail messages intercepted inadvertently.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Donks in Disarray: No Party Platform On Iraq in 2006

2005-12-16

WaPo titles it "Pelosi Hails Democrats' Diverse War Stances" - rigggght, except for Lieberman, huh, Nan? House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party. Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad. "There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors. Pelosi recently endorsed the proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for a swift redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq over a period of six months, but no other party leader followed, and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) publicly opposed her. She said her support for Murtha was not intended to forge a Democratic position on the war, adding that she blocked an effort by some of her colleagues to put the Democrats on record backing Murtha. Her comments ruling out a caucus position appeared to put Pelosi at odds with some other party officials. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean recently said Democrats were beginning to coalesce around a strategy that would pull out all troops over the next two years. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said on the day Murtha offered his plan, "As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we'll have a position." Pelosi, one of the most liberal Democrats in the House, opposed the war and, as the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee before the invasion, argued that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States. She served as Democratic whip when Congress authorized Bush to go to war, and she rallied 126 Democratic votes against the measure when then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), the Democratic leader, supported the White House. Pelosi said she had not consulted with Dean or Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) before taking her position. Her action angered some Democrats, who believed it left the party vulnerable to criticism from the Republicans, but cheered the party's antiwar activists who want party leaders to challenge Bush more vigorously on the war. Meanwhile, House Republicans are planning to seek a vote as early as today on a resolution saying that an "artificial timetable" for the withdrawal of troops is "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq." In a wide-ranging interview, Pelosi labeled the Republican-controlled Congress "the most corrupt in history" and repeated her assertion that Democrats will make ethics a central issue next year. She said that the issue and ethical climate in the country point to Democratic gains next year, and noted that if the elections were held today, Democrats would take control of the House. If Democrats are able to win the majority next year, Pelosi pledged aggressive oversight of the administration on issues including the war, intelligence and how the government responded to Hurricane Katrina. Pelosi said Democrats scored significant victories recently, the biggest coming on Social Security, on which she said Democratic opposition to Bush's proposed private or personal accounts blocked any hopes the White House had for changing the government retirement insurance program this year. "Not only did we take him down on that, but we took down a lot of his credibility as being somebody who cared about 'whining losers people like me,' " she said. When all you have is hate and obstructionism, regardless of the merits of W's proposals, you're a loser, and the people will recognize that.

Link

Home Front

Tape shows Dean maligning the Iowa caucuses

2004-01-09

I’ll get to the WOT stuff in a minute, but I thought you all might enjoy this. Four years ago, Howard Dean denounced the Iowa caucuses as "dominated by special interests," saying on a Canadian television show that they "don’t represent the centrist tendencies of the American people, they represent the extremes." Videotapes of the show were broadcast on the NBC Nightly News on Thursday, less than two weeks before the Jan. 19 caucuses, the first contest of the Democratic nominating race. The tapes show Dr. Dean arguing that the lengthy caucus process in which neighbors gather to debate their preferences is inconvenient for ordinary people. "Say I’m a guy who’s got to work for a living, and I’ve got kids," he said on the show on Jan. 15, 2000. "On a Saturday, is it easy for me to go cast a ballot and spend 15 minutes doing it, or do I have to sit in a caucus for eight hours?" A moment later, he added, "I can’t stand there and listen to everyone else’s opinion for eight hours about how to fix the world."` The excerpts shown on NBC also show Dr. Dean saying in December, 2000, "George Bush is, I believe, in his soul a moderate," and adding about those thinking that Mr. Bush’s presidency would be a one-term one, "that is going to be a mistake." While Dr. Dean now describes Mr. Bush as "the most radical right-wing president in my lifetime," he also frequently acknowledges that, until after Mr. Bush was elected, he believed his promise of moderation. The broadcasting of the tape comes as Dr. Dean is in a fierce fight with Representative Richard A. Gephardt in Iowa, and his comments were a sharp contrast to those he makes daily on the campaign trail in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Now Dr. Dean regularly tells audiences that the Iowa caucuses represent the essence of American democracy. "Without Iowa and New Hampshire, people like me would never have a chance," he said on Nov. 13 upon signing the papers to qualify for the New Hampshire primary. "It’s the only way that candidates with no money but with strong backing, who are willing to put backbone and spine back in the Democratic Party, have any chance at all." Sarah Leonard, a Dean spokeswoman in Iowa, told The Associated Press that his comment "could mean a lot of different things." Shortly after the NBC broadcast, Stephanie Cutter, a spokeswoman for another candidate, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, sent reporters an e-mail message with the NBC transcript, asking, "Which Howard Dean are Iowans going to vote for, the one who insults them, or the one who will soon be releasing yet another clarifying statement?" Mr. Gephardt also leaped on the comments, saying: "The remarks he made about the Iowa caucuses to me are unbelievable. I guess I’d ask him a question: Who are the special interests dominating this caucus? Is it the farmers? Is it organized labor? Is it senior citizens?" The tapes were culled from 90 appearances by Dr. Dean, between 1996 and 2002, on "The Editors," a round table of journalists and politicians that is broadcast in Canada and on PBS stations in the United States. An article about the tapes on the MSNBC Web site includes more excerpts. It shows that in January 1998, Dr. Dean speculated that there "will probably be good and bad" if the Islamic militants of Hamas take over the Palestinian leadership. Yasser Arafat, he said, "is going to leave the scene." He continued: "When that happens, I think Hamas will probably take over. There will probably be good and bad out of that. The bad, of course, is that Hamas is a terrorist organization. However, if they have to run a quasi-state they may actually have to be more responsible and start negotiations. So who knows what will happen." In February 1999, he said, "The next great tragedy is going to be Arafat’s passing, believe it or not." He said the Israelis had thrown away an opportunity to negotiate with Mr. Arafat. "Next comes Hamas, comes far more radical government in Jordan," he said. "I think it’s a frightening proposition." Foreshadowing his 2004 campaign platform, Dr. Dean said on the show in 1998 that he was beginning to question his support of the North American Free Trade Agreement. "I’m worried about the condition of Mexican workers" in factories just south of the border, he said, "and I had hoped that Nafta would boost the Mexican standard of living." The broadcast of the tapes came on a day when two rival campaigns accused Dean workers in Iowa of unethical conduct. Mr. Gephardt’s campaign manager, Steve Murphy, said the Dean campaign was plotting to rig the caucuses by sending in thousands of out-of-state volunteers to vote. And a top aide to Mr. Kerry said two Dean workers misrepresented themselves to gain information on the Kerry campaign. Mr. Murphy of the Gephardt campaign said a Dean field organizer in Iowa described a plan to rig the voting in a conversation several days ago, an accusation the Dean campaign dismissed as ridiculous. State law allows only Iowa residents to participate in the caucuses. Mr. Murphy would not identify the field organizer. Joe Trippi, Dr. Dean’s campaign manager, vehemently denied any effort to rig the caucuses. He said the 3,500 out-of-state volunteers who plan to work for Dr. Dean in Iowa had no intention of voting there.

Link

Home Front

The Fight for the Democratic Party

2003-09-20

Reg Req’d - and slow day in posting, so I’m posting it all - it’s long tho’ - no comments - insert your own - By ROBIN TONER WASHINGTON — Consider, for a moment, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, newly declared candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, as a useful Rorschach test for a conflicted party. What did many Democrats see when they looked at General Clark — and how did that make them feel? They saw a retired military commander who was a critic of the war with Iraq. A decorated hero from the South who could not be dismissed as some outside-the-mainstream, 60’s throwback, yet was willing to confront President Bush on foreign policy. A man who was not only right, but maybe, just maybe, electable. And it made them feel . . . happy. General Clark, of course, is a latecomer, largely untested in politics, whose real importance as a candidate will not be clear for several weeks. But this moment captured something important about a party torn between its heart and its head, between its desire to speak, clearly and without apology, about its beliefs, and its desire to defeat President Bush, put together an electoral majority in a polarized nation and return to power. It is an old struggle in the Democratic Party, resurfacing with each new generation of activists and strategists since the old New Deal coalition came unstuck in the 1960’s. Does the party need to move to the center, muting its liberal edge on cultural issues, economics and foreign policy in order to win? Promise to roll back just part of the tax cut, for example, not the whole thing? Or does that lead to a watery "me-tooism," too careful, too calibrated, too uncertain of what it believes to rouse voters or to make a difference if its proponents actually win office? Let Democrats be Democrats, is the thrust of one argument. Speak to the great American middle, not to each other, is the counter. Hearts and heads at war. Bill Clinton moved the party to a centrist "third way" in 1992, but that happened only after 12 years out of the White House, when Democrats were really hungry to win. And much of that redefinition did not endure once Mr. Clinton and his formidable political skills left the White House. Stanley B. Greenberg, a veteran Democratic pollster who worked for Mr. Clinton, says that Democratic primary voters in the decade since 1992 have become "more partisan, more ideological, more secular and more anti-Republican," just as their Republican counterparts have become more religious, conservative and partisan. In other words, the struggle over the right message, and messenger, has to be waged anew for the post-Clinton Democratic Party. So far, it is largely framed by the powerful anger at the Democratic grassroots — over the 2000 election and a president elected without a popular vote majority; over three years of staunchly conservative policies and a war unpopular with Democratic voters from the start. But there was also anger at Congressional Democrats, consigned to minority status, who to some Democrats seemed too reluctant to challenge the Bush administration. Ever since Vietnam, many Democrats have been deeply suspicious of the use of force, even as party leaders struggled to deflect the charge that Democrats are reflexively antiwar. All this coalesced around the war with Iraq, which was supported by four of the six Congressional Democrats now running for president. Many party activists, in short, were ripe for an appeal from an impassioned, outside insurgent, speaking out against the war and the establishment Democrats who at least initially supported it — speaking to the activists’ hearts. Suddenly, former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont, who famously declared that he represented "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," was atop the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. His speeches were bracing affirmations of old-time Democratic values and beliefs; his audiences were moved. But then, of course, the worried questions began inside the Democratic Party. Is an antiwar governor from a tiny state — Vermont ranks 49th in population — really the strongest candidate to defeat Mr. Bush? If not, then who? Will rank-and-file Democratic voters give enough thought to the unyielding dictates of the electoral map — which candidate has the best chance to carry major battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Michigan — when they cast their ballots? Will they, in other words, use their heads? Bill Carrick, a Democratic consultant now advising Representative Richard A. Gephardt, describes it as "the age-old question — some elections, Democrats in the primary cycle vote their passions; some elections, they vote their heads." Senator John B. Breaux, the Louisiana Democrat and a leader in the Democratic Leadership Council, formed to push the party to the center, worried recently, "The people who go to the caucuses and the conventions tend to be people who are focused first on who’s most closely aligned with what they believe in, and only secondarily on who can win in November." And Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York was one of several Democrats who argued that any successful nominee must pass a credibility test on national security. "I don’t think that any Democratic candidate can beat Bush, from Lieberman to Dean and back, unless they have a positive foreign policy, one that states what they would do to defeat terrorism, not just what Bush did that was wrong," Mr. Schumer said. Senator Evan Bayh, the Indiana Democrat who is currently chairman of the leadership council, recently contended, "We’re not going to win on national security," but the party could lose on it unless the nominee is a credible commander in chief. Such was the backdrop for the Wesley Clark phenomenon, and all the efforts by the other leading candidates to attract a second look from primary voters — as both impassioned and electable. Many Democrats were touting General Clark as a man who could, by virtue of his résumé alone, neutralize the national security issue; realpolitik was in the air last week. Gordon Fischer, the Iowa Democratic chairman, asserted that beating Mr. Bush was "the No. 1 goal" of party activists. "Even Governor Dean’s campaign talks about his skills and advantages as a candidate on the basis of electability," he added. Predicting electability, of course, is tricky; sometimes when Democrats thought they were voting their heads, they were still badly beaten in the general election. Former Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts captured the 1988 Democratic nomination as a moderate, nonideological technocrat — not a man who stirred his party’s passions, but one who seemed, to many Democrats, decent, competent, electable. He lost 40 states that fall. Other traits matter in a candidate, beside his profile and message; sheer passion and political talent can go a long way. Moreover, there is a fundamental divide in politics now over how best to win the presidency — by galvanizing the base, or by reaching out to swing voters, which generally means a more centrist message. In the end, many liberals cling to an old dream, of finding a candidate who appeals to both the base and the majority, and rebuilding the old coalition that seemed to shatter 35 years ago, argued Michael Kazin, a political historian at Georgetown University. "They think that Americans, in their heart of hearts, really agree with them on education, on the environment, on some kind of national health insurance," Professor Kazin said. "And they feel they’re completely right about the war in Iraq." So, they want to fall in love with a candidate. And they want to win

Link

Home Front

Gephardt impressed by Bush

2001-09-15

By R. W. APPLE Jr. NY Times WASHINGTON — With the eyes of a nervous nation fixed upon him, George W. Bush began coming of age as president this weekend. In the capital and in New York City, in settings both formal and informal, Mr. Bush sought to lift the spirits of the American people in the wake of Tuesday's horrific terrorist attacks. He sought to console the bereaved, comfort the wounded, encourage the heroic, calm the fearful and, by no means incidentally, rally the country for the struggle and sacrifice ahead. In the process, he made significant progress toward easing the doubts about his capacity for the job and the legitimacy of his election that have clung stubbornly to him during his eight difficult months in the Oval Office. You could almost see him growing into the clothes of the presidency. "I'm impressed," said Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the Democratic leader in the House. "He's been very strong these last few days."

Link

Home Front

Joint statement praises strike

2001-10-07

New York Times In an unusual display of political unity, the top leaders of both parties in Congress issued a joint statement today endorsing President Bush's decision to begin military strikes in Afghanistan. The statement was issued by the Republican leaders, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois and Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, "We strongly support the operation President Bush ordered our military forces to carry out today," the congressional leaders said in their one-paragraph statement. and the Democratic leaders, Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota. "We strongly support the operation President Bush ordered our military forces to carry out today," the congressional leaders said in their one-paragraph statement. "The administration has properly made it clear that today's actions and any future actions are directed against those who perpetrated the heinous attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, not against Islam or the people of Afghanistan. We stand united with the president and with our troops and will continue to work together to do what is necessary to bring justice to those terrorists and those who harbor them."

Link

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-6 More