by emptywheel
Like Glenn Greenwald, I am unsurprised (but profoundly disappointed) that the Senate Intelligence Committee has declined to investigate the NSA domestic spying program. I guess Fristie's threats to turn the intelligence committee into one more partisan rubber stamp had an effect. But then what difference does bipartisanship make if it always caves?
Glenn is updating his post as this develops. But for now, I'm most struck by two aspects of Pat Roberts' announcement. First, the Republican members of the subcommittee that, he promises, will oversee this program: himself, Hatch, Bond, and DeWine. Hatch and Bond, of course, joined Roberts in his pathetic attack on Joe Wilson in the conclusion of the SSCI Report on Iraq intelligence. They have proven they will put partisanship ahead of truth. DeWine seems to be banking his next election on satisfying his Republican overlords, rather than distancing himself from them.
Then, there is this remarkable language in Roberts' announcement:
Before our last recess, I asked the members of the Intelligence Committee to give me more time to continue these discussions in hope of reaching an accommodation with the Administration on both the oversight and legislative fronts.
[snip]Today we reached an accommodation with the White House to expand the number of members involved in overseeing this important program to seven, just about half of the Committee.
[snip]
It has always been my desire as Chairman to uphold and preserve the nonpartisan tradition of the Intelligence Committee.
That tradition includes working cooperatively with the President, whoever it may be, to the maximum extent possible. When it comes to national security, I prefer accommodation over confrontation whenever possible. We should fight the enemy, not each other.
Today, I asked the Committee to reject confrontation in favor of accommodation by accepting the agreement we insisted upon with the Administration.
Accommodation, accommodation, accommodation, accommodation, four times, accommodation, in one short press release. Did you get the message? Perhaps I was wrong with the use of the word "eunuch" in my title. Perhaps "courtesan" is more appropriate.
In any case, I look forward to seeing who Rockefeller appoints to the subcommittee. He chose the most senior members for the Phase II Whitewash (Levin and DiFi). And while I think Levin is perfect for dealing with the likes of Hatch and Bond, I wonder whether it wouldn't be more effective to put Russ Feingold, rather than DiFi, on this subcommittee.
We need some principle and spine. Oh man, do we need some principle and spine. Russ would be just the guy for it. Very few accommodating bones in his body, that Russ.
Thanks EW. Nice blog you have here.
Posted by: colleen military mom | March 07, 2006 at 19:30
I am so reminded of your wonderful post, "12 Angry Men (Women)." In light of today's bad news, it hurts just to recall it. I pulled this comment over from FDL, because it unfortunately punctuates your post so well.
"I am concerned that potential whistleblowers are being successfully intimidated. Have you seen the reports about how CIA employees are being polographed and internally investigated.
Porter Goss wrote that horrible NYTimes piece about prosecuting whistleblowers and how they do not have a right to substitute their judgement of what is legal or illegal for that of their masters.
How can we expect these people to risk their careers and their liberty? What can we do to protect them?
Lord knows the axis of evil knows how to protect Scooter.
looseheadprop | 03.07.06 - 4:30 pm |"
On the limited bright side, Fitzgerald knew exactly what he was up against when he crafted those perjury and obstruction charges.
Posted by: John Casper | March 07, 2006 at 19:36
Yeah, it seems more and more that "St. Patrick" is the last hope we have of driving the snakes out of Washington.
Not to deify him, or anything, mind you. :)
Posted by: viget | March 07, 2006 at 20:25
On a less gloomy note, imo, the Eunuch Caucas has driven the public political battle, that the WH can't claim is classified, back to the Dubai Ports. IMO we now have to "win" on the Dubai ports. We, corporate media, and Congress cannot let Bush/Rove with a 38%JAR win. The merits of the Dubai issue itself aren't as important as the defeating the WH where it has left itself so exposed, overriding his veto. Winning decisively won't get us back to even, it won't help the whistle blowers, or Dana Priest or Reisen, or people like them. I am thinking metaphorically of the tractor factory at Stalingrad or the First Minnesota on the Second day of Gettysburg.
Posted by: John Casper | March 07, 2006 at 20:37
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1698034&page=3
I wouldn't call this hopeful, but it's not a "done deal."
Posted by: John Casper | March 07, 2006 at 21:03
Yes, Feingold!
Posted by: jonnybutter | March 07, 2006 at 21:24
The Dubai Ports Deal is apparently scheduled for a vote in the House. Duncan Hunter and Jerry Lewis of San Diego are leading the charge--both mentioned in connection with the Cunningham-Wilkes-Wade scandal and maybe in need of a boost. But it looks like this is going to possibly be a real probklem for the WH. Dubai ain;t going quietly, not with all the moeny they have spread around the US lately.
Posted by: Mimikatz | March 08, 2006 at 01:01
Dubai ain;t going quietly
Savor the squirm, which ever way things go. Whether Bush is 'right' on this or not is immaterial. This is payback time. Live by the symbol, die by it. Lead on, Jerry Lewis and Big Duncan. However it turns out is bad for them. It is a perfect issue, in that sense. IMO, there will be no rational security policy - ports or otherwise - until all these bozos are weakened and tossed out. So I can't worry about the substance of this now. We're already generally fucked, regardless of the port deal.
I'm not saying the window into corruption isn't interesting - Clinton, Kemp, Dole, etc. etc. etc. etc. But I have less problem with the deal itself than with the ethos of 'selling-off' chunks of the country, cedeing our independence. There is a difference between a noble lie and an ignoble one. A noble lie is one which everyone knows to be a literal lie, but tells a bigger truth. An ignoble lie is vulgar because you're supposed to believe it literally.
Enjoy the squirm!
Posted by: jonnybutter | March 08, 2006 at 03:17
I like Howard Dean's line that the Republican's should't forget how they'll be screwed, over several years of investigations, if the Dems win the mid-terms in the House or Senate. Robert's Committee would be my first choice.
The Dems might well win if they push the "lying Republicans" theme, entirely aside from any number of Republican scandals that are due to explode in the near future.
Posted by: kim | March 08, 2006 at 23:32
Hi ! Your site is very interesting. Thank you.
Posted by: Jameel | March 21, 2006 at 03:10