"A Billowing White Flag" - Or Is It A Towel?

The formal introduction of the NSA Surveillance bill by four Republican Senators has driven Georgia10 at DKos to near-poetry:

Meet the four horsemen of the Constitutional apocalypse: Republican Senators Mike DeWine, Olympia Snowe, Lindsey Graham, and Chuck Hagel. "Apocalypse, what hyperbole!" you say.  But how else to label the fact that these four Senators will bring to the Senate a billowing white flag of surrender, and a crown for their King?

A billowing white flag!  Or is it a towel?  The NY Times seems to be throwing it in, at least with respect to Don Quixote Feingold:

We understand the frustration that led Senator Russell Feingold to introduce a measure that would censure President Bush for authorizing warrantless spying on Americans. It's galling to watch from the outside as the Republicans and most Democrats refuse time and again to hold Mr. Bush accountable for the lawlessness and incompetence of his administration. Actually sitting among that cowardly crew must be maddening.

Maddening, indeed - how much more gratifying to sit amongst the cowardly crew that has offered zero follow-up on the news that Libby's defense has subpoenaed the notes of Judy Miller *and* Nick Kristof.  But I digress:

Still, the censure proposal is a bad idea. Members of Congress don't need to take extraordinary measures like that now. They need to fulfill their sworn duty to investigate the executive branch's misdeeds and failings. Talk about censure will only distract the public from the failure of their elected representatives to earn their paychecks.

Well at this point, Sen. Feingold '08 has sufficiently poisoned the atmosphere that Democratic calls for an investigation will be dismissed as a partisan attempt to pave the way for censure, impeachment, disembowelment, and decapitation (not necessary in that order).  And Rep spinners will point to the infamous Rockefeller staff memo highlighting just that approach.

Oh, well.  Mark Coffey has more, and Marty Lederman has suggestions for the bill title; I favor "Did We Enact FISA?  Just Kidding! Act of 2006", but I could get behind the "Nobody Here But Us Chickens Act of 2006" as well.

Well, don't say I didn't say so - I said weeks ago that after a phase of hopeful posturing, Congress would throw in their cards - as with the Dubai deal, the overriding imperative in Congress is to appear Tough on Terror.  Of course, with Dems the Dubai deal was a double play - they could be Tough on Terror (Well, Arabs, anyway, but in Dem-world that was the same thing) *and* Tough on Bush.

The NSA deal presents a fork in the road for the Democratic leadership, since, to public appearances, Tough on Terror is not wholly consistent with Tough on Bush.  No worries - if disappointing the base was not a hale and hearty tradition amongst Democratic "leaders", we would see a lot more Congressional pressure for gun control, gay marriage, and abortion rights, to pick a few   The folks at the top know their base represent views that are unelectable and out of touch, so they will move on.

UPDATE:  You've been blogging (or reading them) for too long if you remember the Four Horseman of the Ablogalypse.  And where are they now?

Comments

[topsecretk9]

Maddening, indeed - how much more gratifying to sit amongst the cowardly crew that has offered zero follow-up on the news that Libby's defense has subpoenaed the notes of Judy Miller *and* Nick Kristof. But I digress:

Excellent point TM!

[windansea]

TM...you've been sharpening your knives I see...

[JJ]

Last Sunday's NYT had a interesting article on the network theory and this NSA thing.

They ask: "Could it be that both the administration and its critics are right?" What followed was an explanation of the new world of electronic communication. As in, what comes after the era of six trans-Atlantic cables when the original legislation was written.

Of course, the article was in the Science section and therefore a tad more sober.

And so speaking of things that sink to the bottom of the ocean and things that float to the top, it's a shame that a better technical understanding of the NSA issues have stayed submerged and Feingold's whatever-it-was gets boldly headlined.

Now, we get poetry...

[Aubrey]

The NYT has a base to pander to as well, but I think it's hurting their effort to become a national newspaper. That's not based on anything scientific, just the disappearance of the blue Times home delivery baggies from front lawns here in Houston.

[Carol Johnson]

Speaking of Feingold...

his latest diatribe, according to sound bites I heard on Rush Limbaugh's radio show today, was that if Bush could order the NSA to conduct surveillance on our enemies communicating with agents here in the US, he could also order the "assassination" of American citizens! If I hadn't heard it from Feingold's own mouth, I wouldn't have believed it. I listened to it twice, just to make sure I didn't misunderstand.

Keep digging that hole deeper there, Russ! Just be sure to make it big enough to hold the entire Democratic Party.

Carol

[Dave Schuler]

Look, Feingold needs a “Hail Mary” play if he's going to get any traction at all for his presidential run. He's a relatively unknown senator from a relatively small state without a huge number of electoral votes and he's playing catch-up against a senator from a big state who has 100% name recognition.

Expect him to get more outrageous in his hyperbole as the primaries near.

[SteveMG]

It's interesting that this group of Republican maverick types usually receive great praise from the likes of the NT Times and the rest of the MSM. Haven't we been hearing for years that the party needs to go in the direction of the likes of Collins and Specter?

Ah, the revenge of the moderate Republicans. Nice to realize that that esteemed group can drive the left batty as well as us on the right.

Hoisted on their own facade.

SMG

[TM]

Hoisted on their own facade.

That is way up on my "to-steal" list.

If history is any guide, I'll just wait a few weeks until I've forgotten where I read it - then it's almost original, right?

[Sue]

The real question is do you have the power of delete? If so, Steve's post could be just a figment of his own imagination. ::grin::

[TexasToast]

SMG

Good point about Republican moderates. They are providing a way out of this mess which avoids the polarization of an impeachment or censure battle - something we might wish had happened in 1998. Can we not give the same credit to moderate democrats who also wish to avoid a divisive bloodbath without branding them as cynical opportunists who are forcing their "...unelectable and out of touch ..." base to stand in the corner?

Apparently not.

Don Quixote was a man who believed that the world is an ideal place of romance: a place where virtue and vice will appear plainly marked, and where the virtue will always, after heroic effort on the part of the knight, triumph over vice. Does this not describe GWB as well as Russ Feingold? Sancho Panza, on the other hand, was cynical enough to observe that it didn't matter whether the rock hit the pitcher, or the pitcher hit the rock, it was going to be bad for the pitcher.

In the NSA case, it seems to me that the we are the pitcher, and its best not to hit us too hard with a no holds barred fight over presidential power. Looks like a lot of moderates, both R and D, see it the same way.

Its too bad that GWB talked most of them into believing that the windmills in Iraq were giants.

[MTT]

Texas Toast,

You almost had me.

Here: Life Today, without the war in Iraq.

Gerard">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2089810,00.html">Gerard Baker

Just Sayin'.

[MTT]

Oops.

Bad Link.

Here

[Beto Ochoa]

...GWB talked most of them into believing that the windmills in Iraq were giants.
Well if they aren't taking advantage of the extensive coverage their eyglasses plan provides it's their own fault.
No wonder so many politicians believe in universal health care; they get the best care and the lowest cost. (since we're paying.)

[Sue]

GWB talked most of them into believing that the windmills in Iraq were giants.

Actually, it was a tag team effort. A WaPo poll, on September 13, 2001, asked who was behind the 9/11 attacks. The overwhelming majority of respondents answered Iraq. Before Bush had even mentioned Iraq.

But keep that very quiet, please. We are supposed to believe Bush sold us on Iraq with WMDs all by his lonesome.

[SteveMG]

Toast:
GWB talked most of them into believing that the windmills in Iraq were giants.

Ah, but GWB came in during Act II. Much of the plot had already been developed.

Don't you recall Act I? There we had WJC (trumpets flourish) and his allies telling us how Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that they had used them before, "and that they would use them again."

And that, in Act I, Scene II, those players told us that Iraq was a destabilizer of the region, had funded and supported and trained terrorists - including those connected to Osama Bin Laden, and that it was both an enemy of the US and our friends in the region.

Indeed, there were many other soliloquies from players large and small during Scene III demanding the removal of this dreadful regime and the tyrant running it.

Perhaps you arrived too late for the play? Missed those scenes?

SMG

[WeDon't NeedAnotherKingGeorge]

A patriot named John Adams once said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

Bush should have been censured when he chose not to call NORAD -- what did he do instead? This:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm

[danking70]

"A WaPo poll, on September 13, 2001, asked who was behind the 9/11 attacks. The overwhelming majority of respondents answered Iraq. Before Bush had even mentioned Iraq."

There was this blog entry/article recently that showed through MSM reporting numerous articles and leaks connecting Saddam and Al-Qaeda as partners-in-crime.

I haven't found it yet.

[danking70]

That's real good SMG.

[danking70]

Finally found it. That took longer than I thought.

Media Reports Connect Saddam to 9/11 Plot

http://www.aim.org/aim_report/4425_0_4_0_C/

[stillnotjeff]

Isn't another shoe about to drop on the NSA stuff? Seems one of the mags is going to report that after 9/11 Bush also authorized physical searches of homes without warrants ....

[cathyf]

If history is any guide, I'll just wait a few weeks until I've forgotten where I read it - then it's almost original, right?

"It was as if I were hearing it for the first time..."

(I think I mighta read that somewhere...)

cathy :-)

[richard mcenroe]

" he could also order the "assassination" of American citizens!"

Is that before or after he legalizes raping Cameron Diaz?

Poor bastard's got a "to do" list the size of the LA phonebook.

Oh, wait...

[topsecretk9]

Danking

You know of course that ANY supporting material after the fact does not factor in Kos' hate program--it's white noise at this point and certainly manufactured. Good news for the war "effort" is NOT congru-itive to Kos's good books sales now. Behave.

[TM]

Sancho Panza, on the other hand, was cynical enough to observe that it didn't matter whether the rock hit the pitcher, or the pitcher hit the rock, it was going to be bad for the pitcher.

In the NSA case, it seems to me that the we are the pitcher, and its best not to hit us too hard with a no holds barred fight over presidential power. Looks like a lot of moderates, both R and D, see it the same way.

Well spoken, Tex, but that metaphor would work a lot better if the World Baseball Classic weren't underway. We're the pitcher, and what about Iraq?

Who's on Frist?

[Neo]

Don't miss this on the dispute that Fitz lacks legal authority to indict Libby.

[ajacksonian]

Russ Feingold digs... hits bedrock... asks for dynamite... gets handed case with lit fuse...

Just a bit further, Mr. Feingold... and you will blow this all out with one shot... and weren't you supposed to be creating a mountain? What are you doing in that hole?

[TexasToast]

Tom

Cute ;)

When Cervantes wrote it, there wasn't any baseball. Think ceramic water pitcher, not Astros closer. Then, all shall be revealed!

SMG

Yep, I did see the broadway version. IIRC, the showstopper was a song titled "The Impossible Dream." Great song, but no way to decide whether or not to go to war. All of those other players you mentioned saw the windmills, noted the danger in a single knight charging them with just a lance, and determined that they were best contained as they had been successfully since the first Gulf War. Don Bush charged in, got caught between historical enemies, and now, after 2000+ American dead, orders of magnatude more Iraqi dead, and billions of dollars, we are negotiating with Iran to help keep the lid on, running photo op operations to "showcase" the Iraqi army, and setting non-timetqbles for withdrawal.

The best executed charge wouldn't have stopped those windmill arms from turning once the wind picked back up. Only the complete destruction of the windmill would work, and we charged in "on the cheap". But it wasn't just the bungled execution. It was the decision to "charge" in the first place.

[boris]

Saddam had to go. The best time to take him out was about a year before we actually did.

911 wasn't successfully contained. Don't see the connection ??? Figures.

[TM]

From the file labeled "Arguments I haven't made... but might":

Suppose we had invaded Afghanistan pre-emptively in the summer of 2001, and prevented 9/11.

Would we have had UN support?

Would we probably still be there? If so, would it be denounced as a quagmire? (I'll assume that 2,000 dead would not have happened, but what level of casualties would have been right to pre-empt Osama prior to 9/11?)

[Lew Clark]

Neo noticed something I have been noticing lately, the MSM (maybe hopeful thinking on their part, because they know a trial puts them in deep do do) think Libby has a case for dismissal here. I take that from the tone of their reporting. Throughout this whole thing, until now, the MSM reporting has read like "Brave Sir Patrick is well on his way to nailing those criminals at the White House, as can been seen by his filings today." But the latest reads like "Boy is Fitzgerald in trouble now! Libby just nailed him again!"
The only question is, is this wishful thinking because they want their "Waterloo" to just go away or are they accurately reading the tea leaves, with help from their "anonymous sources close to the investigation" that Fitz has decided that there is no way he's spending one more day in Washington when Chicago is so beautiful this time of year.

[TexasToast]

"Responses I haven't made... but might"

Suppose we had invaded Afghanistan pre-emptively in the summer of 2001, and prevented 9/11. Would we have had UN support?

No, because I doubt anyone would have believed that AQ had the capability it showed on 9/11. They have now shown both the intent and the capability.

To stretch the windmills metaphor to the breaking point, I think any attack on the US (particularly a nuclear attack) from anywhere in the vicinity of the windmills will result in an overwhelming response from us including the complete destruction of the windmills, the millers, and the villages surrounding the mill for miles around. I think Arab governments realize this - which is why they are clamping down hard on the Don Quixote's in their midst.

Lets hope it doesn't happen.

[TM]

To stretch the windmills metaphor to the breaking point, I think any attack on the US (particularly a nuclear attack) from anywhere in the vicinity of the windmills will result in an overwhelming response from us

Or from France, anyway.

I hope they think so, but I am not sure I believe it myself.

[Barney Frank]

OK, now I'm confused. I thought GBW and Russ Feingold were represented by Don Quixote. Now its terrorists?
Nor do Cervantes' windmills equate to Iraq, Iran or any of the other players we are tilting at. Windmills are harmless machines used for benficial economic purposes. The windmill of Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth.
This is what often happens with argument by metaphor. Christ can sustain a parable, most of us can barely make toast.

[Soylent Red]

All:

Thanks for the links yesterday.

TM:

I think the best argument I've heard to date for the invasion of Iraq goes something like this (courtesy of my dad the LtC Ret.):

Whether Saddam was directly invlved in 9/11 or not, Iraq needed to go sooner or later. Post 9/11 we got involved in Afghanistan, but the lessons of the Russians and British were not lost on us.

Afghanistan is a difficult place to conduct the kind of operations the bulk of our military is best suited for, whereas Iraq is by and large, flat and quite hospitable for what we're good at.

Thus, making an accurate prediction that we would be facing a 4GW enemy wherever we were at, the decision was made at CENTCOM or higher to pick a place that needed taking out anyway that didn't have an abundance of nooks and crannies to hide out in and flypaper the enemy into that place. In other words, as GWB has said all along, Iraq is an important front in the GWOT that started in Afghanistan. It's part of a larger picture, not an end unto itself, whether or not there was a 9/11 or A-Q link.

Imagine if all of the A-Q in Iraq were being fought in Afghanistan instead. Much tougher, and probably twice as many casualties. And Saddam would still be around to deal with in the future (with possible operational links to A-Q as well).

But that rationale is a tough sell to the U.N. and Euros, who fundamentally gives less than a rat's ass about our security agenda. Therefore the entire Iraq theater has been couched in terms of Saddam being a global threat than a specific threat to us (both as a stand alone, and with any A-Q ties).

Also, IMO, this whole thing, while starting in Afghanistan and currently being hottest in Iraq, is aimed directly at Iran and Syria, and has been since very early on. Iraq just happened to be the victim of very unfortunate geography.

[Rick Ballard]

"Iraq just happened to be the victim of very unfortunate geography."

Having Saddam as its leader wasn't the luckiest draw ever made either. You are absolutely correct concerning geography and logistics driving the decision as to where to start and procede with the war. Tehran was always (and still is) the objective. It's no secret.

Except, perhaps, to those unable to read a map or plan anything beyond a walk in the park.

[JM Hanes]

The best argument for taking out Saddam was Uday & Qusay.