Rove knows what he's doing

The press is falling into Rove's trap. Reporters are shocked that Rove has finally stated that Bush's low poll numbers are due to the problems with Iraq. "Finally Bush is realizing that his approval is highly linked to Iraq" they say with pride that they've finally gotten Bush to indirectly admit his failures. "Iraq looms over everything," says David Gregory on Chris Mathew's Sunday morning show. Articles in the Washington Post and on CNN.com confirm enthusiasm for Rove's candor.

Rove wants you to continue to say that his low approval numbers are because of Iraq. The more you say it, the more you're building potential for political rebound. Why? Because as time goes on, things will appear to improve in Iraq. Fewer Americans will die there as our troop levels decline and they take a smaller role in security operations. So, as our military role in Iraq continues on its natural course--regardless of its actual impact on the Iraqi people or anyone else--the appearance of improvement will inevitably improve our collective support for Bush's administration of this policy. Even if the improvement is small, Bush will gain more than he otherwise would because his team has hyped the impact of his Iraqi policy beforehand. They'll gain more by not doing anything extra. The press is doing their work for them.

With every milestone that occurs in the future, Bush will gain extra simply because Rove has gotten the press to say that his success is completely tied to Iraq. Logic follows that as success appears to occur in Iraq, then Bush is a successful president. Nevermind the long-term effects of this policy on Iraqis, the Middle East, our economy, and our credibility.

This is Rove. Why is the press shocked as though he's actually admitting failure? He's not. He's playing with your expectations regarding the war and he's playing it beautifully.

NO PRESS, NO CONGRESS--THEN WHO?!?

Hayden's rant yesterday on the evil media imposing oversight was disturbing. Here he was talking to an impotent Congress--the body refusing to act as a check on an aggressive executive branch--while simultaneously attacking the press for revealing the existence of the NSA programs, secret CIA prisons--all illegal--trying to appeal to our fears about terrorism. Congress is Hayden's bitch, and the press is next on his bitch list.

Admittedly, I'm no intelligence expert. However, I strongly suspect that the details revealed by the press in all of these stories do not in any way compromise our security. If they do, then we're fighting the stupidest terrorist ever known to man. And even if these leaks do hurt us, I'm willing to take the risk for the sake of keeping watch on a government that has a tendency to break the law and our basic values of governance. If you don't want "leaks", then DON’T BREAK THE LAW. It's that simple! Do what's legal and whistleblowers don't have protections, so you'll eliminate leaks.

Look they're not really interested in stopping these leaks for the sake of security. They're merely interested in shifting focus away from their illegal actions, relying on our propensity for being overly fearful of the threat of terrorism.

Hayden says that without the leaking we will have accountability. Are we to believe that this administration is going to monitor itself? What if we disagree with the criteria the Bush administration has set as premises for action? If we don't have oversight from an independent body, then we are not only stuck with trusting an extraordinarily secret administration to hold itself accountable, but we have no say in how the criteria are set. Bush believes that a president at war can do what he wants. He's the Decider--nobody else. If that's the premise he uses for judging accountability, then his determination will always be different than mine. That Hayden's lawyers told him the programs were legal while he was at the NSA is missing the point. That doesn't preclude the need for oversight because oversight allows us to give our intelligence officials something extra to think about: their logic will be evaluated by an independent body, so it had better be legally sound, nothing less than necessary, and palatable. If there was oversight to begin with, these programs wouldn't have been started because oversight would have affected the logic of the NSA decision makers. Actually, considering we have a Republican Congress unwilling to assert its powers, maybe it wouldn’t have helped—but you get the idea.

I disagree with Hayden. We need the press now more than ever. We need oversight now more than ever. He's proposing we have neither when it comes to intelligence activities. I don't care what war we're fighting or even if sharing information between branches hurts us in that war (and I believe it doesn't…and please don’t give me an crap about having briefed a handful congress members. That’s just not good enough). Oversight is more important than a level secrecy that is unnecessary and harmful to our system of government. This is the lecture he should have had from every member of Congress yesterday--Democrat or Republican--after he vomited his bullshit on them.

Oversight, oversight, oversight!!!

Regarding my last topic:

The Washington Post put out a poll that asked Americans whether they found the NSA phone records program to be acceptable. 63% said it is an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, while 35% said it was unacceptable. This poll confirms the worry I talked about when the story originally broke. This approach by the news--in this case it's the Post, but they're all attacking it from this same angle (even more liberal shows like Keith Olbermann)--is only getting at one of the concerns about this program: how we are going to define privacy.

The more serious issue is being completely missed: how we are responding to an executive branch that is acting without adequate oversight and what this action says about our interpretation of executive wartime powers granted by the Constitution.

Why wasn't there a second poll that asked, "Do you think the program is legal?" or "Do you think the legality of the program is a significant concern?" In fact, this poll put out by the Post tells us nothing new. It fits with the response to the revelation about the NSA surveillance program last winter, which showed us that people are willing to give up some privacy for protection. Aside from the fact that nobody has yet to prove that either of these programs are actually effective in preventing terrorism (no, President Bush. Just saying it does is not the same thing as proving it), people seem ready to give the government the benefit of the doubt. That's fine. I disagree, but fine. This is debatable and will not be solved through public debate outside of Congress. Why? Because it has already been decided for you. And this is evident in the more important aspect of this issue, which I’ll cover here:

What does this program mean in terms of federal law and the constitution? What does this say about how the government is operating? The legality of the program is shaky at best. It violates the privacy sections of the Telecommunications Act and if they are eavesdropping then it violates FISA. Lost in the mess about what this means for our definition of privacy is the fact that the Dept. of Justice just canceled its investigation of the NSA surveillance program because the executive branch, in which the DOJ belongs, was not giving investigators the needed clearance to gather evidence. The executive branch will not be checking itself (no big surprise there), so we should be concerned with checks & balances kicking in here---we're not and neither is most of Congress, which should make us all very concerned.

To be fair, there has been some discussion about the legality concerns I'm talking about on TV and in the papers. However, the emphasis remains on the privacy discussion. The privacy discussion is important, but it should not be superseded by a concern that the executive branch is acting without oversight on almost all national security matters while treading on shaky legal grounds (and they're totally getting away with it without even a drop of legislative modification). Yes, the discussion about public administration is less juicy and it requires some knowledge about our system of government, the Constitution, and current federal law. This is where the news is failing us. This is their chance to show us that they can help inform the public what this means in all its breadth--not just in juicy "who is listening to you today" terms. They failed us before the Iraq invasion and after 9/11. Now they can make it up to us. Having said that, I'm not optimistic in most news sources to put the emphases in the right places.

So, like I said before, make sure you watch C-SPAN to listen to scholars, watch PBS to listen to mature and productive debates, and read your blogs to learn how this could easily escalate into much more than collecting the phone records of Americans: it may be a program where multiple federal agencies are actively eavesdropping on Americans who are not terrorist suspects but only know someone through many degrees of separation who may be. In Bush’s legal interpretation of executive wartime powers, such a program is perfectly acceptable.

Do you think I'm overreacting? Really? Did you know that the NSA has been given authority to share access to the database with agencies like the Drug Enforcement Agency? I'm telling you, this is more than just tracking phone records for Al Qaeda while briefing certain members of Congress. We don't know for sure because nobody will investigate!!! Don't hold your breath for Arlen Spector to hold another hearing. Gonzalez attended one of his "hearings", avoided taking an oath of honesty, and then lied. We need substantial congressional oversight, which means real hearings (under oath) with real response—e.g., modifications of laws, new processes, punishment for criminality to ensure that we’re still a system of accountability.

I really think that one day we'll learn that this is a comprehensive effort to assert executive authority during what Bush believes to be World War III. How soon we learn it the accuracy of this will depend on how concerned we are about administrative procedure, not our own debatable opinions on how we're defining privacy.

It's hitting the fan

I have this routine every day online: check the WaPost, then the NY Times, then CNN.com. If there’s a headline that is on just one, it may turn into something down the road, but won’t be that explosive. If on two, it’s big. If it’s all three, it’s going to be very big.

Today is one of the rare instances when the same topic headlines all three websites:

The Post: Call Tracking by NSA Sparks Alarm on Hill

NY Times: Bush Says U.S. Spying Is Not Widespread

CNN: Bush: We're not trolling your personal life

The topic is nothing new, and those of us who have followed this from the beginning always assumed that the program was bigger than what was being disclosed (I mean, once it was justified legally in the mind of the White House staff, then why NOT make it a huge program?).

I've seen lots of reaction on talk shows. Bush supporters are pissed because they feel this is just to screw up the CIA director nomination (he was a key architect of the NSA program) and it reveals methods to terrorists (so!?!?). You can be certain that this is going to get bigger. Like I said in the past, we just scratched the surface. Bush is only acting in a manner that is consistent with his interpretation of executive powers in times of war. What did you expect?

There are two stories here worth following: the first is the discovery of the program's breadth, which I believe we're only beginning to explore, and second how the manner in which the program is being executed affects the governance process. The first is going to be important to the press and may even affect the upcoming elections. But, this first issue on the program’s breadth is largely a matter of preference: how much do you want your government to do in its efforts to protect you? The second issue about the effect on the legislative process, checks & balances, etc, is most troubling to me. This is where I think we'll see a long-lasting effect on our country. Bush's actions here, along with his unprecedented abuse of signing statements (750 of them), fundamentally alter the way government functions in this country—in a way that puts our constitutional protections in danger (e.g., separation of powers).

When Gonzalez last "testified" in front of the Judiciary Committee, he spoke without being under oath. He told our congress that the program was "narrowly tailored", which we now know not to be true (and always suspected). This is important, and Democrats are starting to call them on it. Today, Leahy rightly declared "shame" on congress for not doing its duty to oversee this program properly, shamed that this story had to be uncovered by the press rather than by Congress who has held FOUR HEARINGS ON THE TOPIC!!! Our congress is complicit in the quick breakdown of what we all want to be a stable system of checks and balance. (Having said that, I don’t think the Democrats will find a proper solution if given power in Congress.)

You'll hear a lot in the next day or two about how Americans don't mind being tracked as long as it saved lives but that this is going too far. In my view, that's debatable. Maybe it is too far, maybe not. I happen to think it is, but I admit not to have the strongest arguments against tracking phone numbers called (as opposed to eavesdropping), but the important issue is how we are going to respond to the manner in which the program is being performed, which is without proper oversight and firm legal standing. Will Congress continue to roll over? If lawsuits are brought to the Surpreme Court for those who feel they were wrongfully spied on, will they hear the cases? In the noise of this "in my back yard" controversy, the real effect on our system may be missed or limited to C-SPAN covered-only discussions. If these important discussions are missed because people only want to get their news from Fox, local stations, or neighbors, then they deserve to be spied on because they're as complicit in the destruction of our system of government as any anti-American terrorist.

Bad policy, not bad intel

I read two things this morning in an article in The Nation that shocked me: 1) CBS had a report that they chose not to air because they thought it would be too controversial, especially after the Right grilled Dan Rather for being a biased liberal, and 2) the US had recruited Hussein’s Foreign Minister as a spy, and he told the US that they had no WMD, which the US chose to ignore. The evidence that this was a policy failure, not intelligence failure, keeps piling up.

"They were enthusiastic" at first, said Drumheller, "that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis." CIA Director George Tenet reported the news that Hussein's Foreign Minister Naji Sabri was working covertly for the United States to a White House meeting attended by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Their initial enthusiasm, Drumheller says, quickly turned to cold indifference when Sabri told them the opposite of what they wanted to hear.

King George quietly expands his rule

"President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution," according to an article in the Boston Globe. I knew he had used his signing statements to establish his self-declared right to ignore sections of laws for legislation like the Patriot Act and recent torture guidelines, but I had no idea the use of this tool was so extensive.

I strongly urge you to read this article (you may have to register, which is quick, free, and painless).

Look, I'm not going to try to argue that Bush shouldn't be using this tool. Every President has the right to alter his practice as long as it's within the powers granted by the Constitution. His right to use the signing statement to interpret the law is his right. However, it is the obligation of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and it is the obligation of Congress to execute its legislative powers. Neither branch has challenged Bush's statements, which in effect provides legislative and interpreting powers to the executive branch. But, again, who am I to question the legal foundations of Bush's actions? All I can say is this: expanding executive power without a single question raised by the other two question is entirely against the spirit of our constitution. I'm not an expert and cannot say that Bush's interpretations are wrong (though based on this article, I'm extremely suspicious that they are very, very wrong), but I can say that I strongly suspect that this is a collaboration between the three republican controlled branches to reduce checks and balances, at least temporarily, so that a republican agenda can be executed before they lose power. What's worse is that it is done quietly--not with actual legislation or with court cases, but with quiet signing statements. Is this a deal among the current holders of these three branches? Congress can pass whatever they want (Bush is the only president in history who hasn't used his veto power this late into his presidency) and claim credit for getting things done, and Bush will sign it while quietly issuing exceptions (which is, in effect, legislating, which the executive branch cannot do). And what about the courts? Have they forgotten their duty to interpret the Constitution?