. . . has a rather excellent post up on FISA Surveillance, and the blind spots at The New York Times.

I was going to link it yesterday morning, but my computer was acting up. And then I had to go condo-shopping. And then I had to eat pizza, and sleep. And wake up to the sound of a windstorm moving all my junk around on the balcony.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

and how the House Democrats are picking the trial lawyers . . . um, I mean, our CIVIL LIBERTIES!—over fairly pedestrian gathering of intelligence:

Protecting the countryÂ’s surveillance capabilities in a time of war? Not so much. Protecting trial lawyers? A party imperative.

As the neo-civil libertarians on the left continue to argue (in between crafting smoking bans and environmental legislation that will have the government, in essence, monitoring your thermostat), their real concern here is that the telecoms not be given immunity for their “illegal activity.” Point out to them that no “illegalities” have been established, and the answer is always the same: if these big corporations have nothing to hide, than why would they need immunity? — an argument that studiously ignores two obvious facts, first, that litigation not only penalizes the telecoms financially (would they go to court or just settle?) while enriching the trial lawyers (who get paid either way); and second, that such a threat of legal liability is also a back door way of keeping risk-averse corporations from cooperating with the government. After all, why cooperate if doing so could open you up to a lawsuit, even if you have assurances that what your are doing isn’t illegal?

After all, Jeff points out—along with Andy McCarthy—the intel we lose while Pelosi et al. go out for their recess will likely "stay lost." Fewer dots to connect, and all that. But it's okay: it'll be Bush's fault if the dots don't get connected, no?

For decades now, the Dems have worked (with outspoken exceptions) to weaken US security — either by placing (unconstitutional, in my opinion) restrictions on intelligence agencies (FISA was never supposed to affect military intelligence gathering), or by cutting military spending, or by adopting a cynical tone of moral indignation at the “loss of freedoms” that they know to be a chimera of their own construction.

Which is their prerogative, naturally — but something that John McCain should be outraged by (if only for appearances), and seeking to use as wedge issue by trumpeting his concerns to his buddies in the media. Like a shiny maverick riding to the rescue of a weakened nation.

Yeah, well. That's McCain. I'm still torn between actually voting for the man, and writing in "a ham and cheese panino."

Take home lesson #1: however awful you think the Rethuglicans are on national security, they are less-bad than the Democrats. Mostly.

Take home lesson #2: never hesitate to shrewishly nag your favorite bloggers into posting more. They'll pretend to resist, but at some point they will buckle, leading to juicy reads. Hooray for the juicy reads! (And less-hooray for the depressing events they chronicle.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.

In case you haven't seen it, this is the alternate scenario regarding Sandy Berger's theft/destruction of classified documents, detailing how the media would have reacted if Condi Rice had done the deed instead.

I'd especially like to see reactions from my liberal/dem readers on this situation. Do you agree that the media are handling Berger with kid gloves? Do you agree that temporarily suspending his access to the classified documents at the National Archives (for only three years) is an obscenity?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Or at least they should call me in for the sweet-talking part. I happen to excel at that.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Not the war in Iraq: the war between the Bush Administration and the CIA. Jeff's got an extended quotation from the Journal Online, and some thoughts of his own on where to go from here.

There's clearly something fishy going on. Whether or not you think that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger was one of the CIA's attempts to embarass the President (Dorkafork at INDC* says no), the CIA does appear to be out of control—and more than a little incompetent.

Bush can't stand above the fray any more: he is the fray.

* Fixed to give credit where it's due. My apologies to Dorkafork; I just can't get used to the fact that some blogs more important than mine have additional writers even when the main blogger isn't on vacation.

Posted by: Attila at 05:38 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

She has some terrific commentary in the form of transcripts from the Rush Limbaugh show that include pieces of Weldon's speech. This story is just going to keep getting bigger as time goes by.

Posted by: Attila at 01:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . is taking on the DIA over the Able Danger story.

Posted by: Attila at 01:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . tells her side of the story. I missed this when it first ran, but it is priceless.

Posted by: Attila at 01:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Over at Outside the Beltway James comments on the defeat of the intelligence reform bill:

It's unclear from the reporting whether this is a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good or rather it was a wise avoidance of a hastily-considered bill. Clearly, the idea of merging all intelligence functions, including tactical level military intelligence, under a single civilian head was a bad recommendation. The 9-11 Commission had numerous big names on it, but few of them had any expertise in intelligence matters.

I second that emotion; however, I kind of get the impression that there were two threads of opposition, and one was reasonably principled/appropriate. The other . . . hm.

WaPo:

The sidetracked bill would have created a director of national intelligence and a counterterrorism center, along with scores of other changes to the nation's approach to gathering intelligence and battling terrorism. The measure would have given the new intelligence chief authority to set priorities for the Central Intelligence Agency and 14 other agencies that gather intelligence, including several at the Defense Department. Hastert refused to call the proposal dead, saying Congress may reconvene Dec. 6 to try again, although lawmakers had planned to close out the 108th Congress this weekend.

Even some key Republicans, however, said prospects appear slim for producing a compromise that the House and Senate can pass. "I don't now see a process for which we can get this done in the next few weeks," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee and the House's top GOP negotiator.

Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the committee's top Democrat, said, "I think those who are vehemently opposed are not going to come around." She said it is up to Bush, Hastert and other GOP leaders to overcome the House conservatives' resistance. If a bill is not enacted by year's end, efforts would have to start anew in the 109th Congress that convenes in January.

I hope the legislators who blocked this bill—which, keep in mind, might have passed had it simply been voted on—feel really good about themselves if we have a terrorist attack in February of 2005.

Hastert said the two chief opponents to the compromise were House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.). They persuaded scores of GOP colleagues to join their opposition in a sometimes emotional closed-door meeting of House Republicans. There, in a Capitol basement room, Hastert tried in vain to find enough votes to pass the bill without relying mainly on Democrats, a scenario too embarrassing for Republicans to endure. His failure seemed to stun many lawmakers, and some Democrats denounced the GOP for being unable to deliver a high-profile measure backed by a Republican president.

Is it starting to sound like "laws and sausages" yet? Keep going:

Hunter said he opposed the bill because Senate conferees had removed a White House-drafted section ensuring that tactical or battlefield intelligence agencies would still be primarily directed by the secretary of defense, even as they reported to the new national intelligence director. The compromise called for the president to issue "guidelines" on the respective authorities of the director of national intelligence and defense secretary, which Hunter said, "was elevating for the DNI but detrimental to the defense secretary . . . a change that would make war fighters not sure to whom they report and translate into confusion on the battlefield."

Collins called Hunter's argument "utterly without merit," saying the measure actually would improve the real-time satellite intelligence that troops receive in combat. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), another key negotiator, said: "The commander in chief, in the middle of a war, said he needed this bill" to keep the American people and military safe.

Hunter's opposition—in a point James hinted at at OTB—at least appears reasoned in the sense that there must be some instances wherein information should be confined to the Pentagon initially, before being shared with civilian analysts (without even getting started on the fact that the current incarnation of the CIA is leaking like a damned colandar).

And then there are those who appear to be 100% obstructionist, linking intelligence issues to immigration, which should be a whole 'nother debate. Wisconsin voters, please write letters to this guy, and never mind whether you're in his district or not (matter of fact, I may write one myself):

The past two days of negotiations were spent almost entirely on the immigration issues raised by Sensenbrenner, with the Judiciary Committee chairman often accepting proposals, then returning after consulting with colleagues with demands for new changes, sources said. At one point, the Senate staff by mistake offered language for one section that had been submitted by Sensenbrenner, and he returned it, saying it was not good enough, according to one participant.

What an idiot. A dangerous idiot. Please, please—someone spank this man.

Meanwhile, some Democrats have forgotten that the point of all we've been through since 9/11 has to do with our country being under attack:

Democrats ripped into House Republicans for blocking the bill. House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that "their inability to overhaul our intelligence system is a staggering failure." Harman called it "a tragedy for America." Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that "the Republican leadership had a choice between protecting the security of the American people and placating its extreme right wingers. The American people lost, and the extreme right won."

Harmon's remark seems reasonable enough, but Pelosi and Van Hollen appear to think any day is a beautiful day for scoring points off of national security.

I'd love to see military intel stay under the control of the military. But marrying intelligence concerns to immigration is foolish and destructive.

And now the possibility exists that President Bush will have to limp along, doing what he can via Executive Orders, and that getting the situation fixed will have to wait till next year.

Would someone remind these people that, had Flight 93 not been delayed by 45 minutes on the morning of September 11, 2001, they would most likely not have a Capitol building at all to meet in and play their political games?

If these people break for Christmas without resolving this I'm going to be pretty pissed off.

Lean on them.

Posted by: Attila at 07:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1062 words, total size 7 kb.