Special Interests First, Country Second
Posted February 18th, 2008 by Da King
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker Of The House Of Representatives, had a decision to make last week. Should she bring the new FISA bill to the floor for a vote, where it would certainly pass and be signed into law immediately by President Bush, or should she prevent the bill from being voted upon, thereby allowing the Protect America Act to expire, weakening our country's ability to gather intelligence against foreign terrorist groups like Al Qaeda ?
It seems obvious that Pelosi should have chosen the democratic way and allowed the vote, but she didn't. Now Congress is on vacation and our intelligence capabilities are diminished. The question is, why would Pelosi do that ? The outward sticking point for Pelosi and pals is that they resisted giving telecom companies immunity from lawsuits for providing information to the government about Al Qaeda. Dozens of such lawsuits have been filed already, and granting retroactive immunity for these companies would kill them. If it sounds odd to you that companies would be sued for helping the government fight Al Qaeda following 9/11, it sounds odd to me as well.
If any of you think Pelosi didn't allow the vote due to 4th amendment concerns, you haven't been paying much attention. If the Democratic Congress was concerned about the 4th amendment, they would't have passed the Protect America Act to begin with, the new FISA bill wouldn't have passed the Senate, and they wouldn't have pushed for the recent 21 day extension. If the new FISA bill was a 4th amendment violation, so were all of those things. No, this wasn't about the Constitution at all. This was about something much more important to the Democratic leadership, something apparently more important than national security even…
Money.
You see, the number one contributor to Democratic political campaigns is trial lawyers. These are the very same trial lawyers who are looking to score some very big bucks by suing those telecom companies. From a Bob Novak column, called Torts And Terrorism, comes this:
Amanda Carpenter, a Townhall.com columnist, has prepared a spreadsheet showing that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in the telecommunications suits have contributed $1.5 million to Democratic senators and causes. Of the 29 Democratic senators who voted against the FISA bill last Tuesday, 24 took money from the trial lawyers (as did two absent senators, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama). Eric A. Isaacson of San Diego, one of the telecommunications plaintiff's lawyers, contributed to the recent unsuccessful presidential campaign of Sen. Chris Dodd, who led the Senate fight against the bill containing immunity.
It's as simple as that. Monkey lawyers pay, monkey Congress do. Democrats know they have weakened our intelligence capabilities. One Democrat who is definitely in the know, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, warned his party colleagues of that very thing:
“What people have to understand around here is that the quality of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded.” (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Floor Remarks, 02/14/08)
The Democratic leadership didn't care. They didn't care about us as a country. They just didn't want to alienate their biggest contributors, the lawyers (No wonder Obama, Hillary, and Edwards are all lawyers). This isn't a condemnation of the entire Democratic party, only the leadership and the majority view. The minority moderate Democrats, known as Blue Dogs, supported the new FISA bill, which is why it certainly would have passed when combined with near unanimous Republican support.
Thanks for nothing, Nancy Pelosi. You put special interests first, and our country second.
Enjoy your vacation.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Listen up! Before you go to the polls, bone up on the opposition research that will be coming out as soon as we Democrats pick our nominee-
the Repubs are being nice and quiet about Obama for a big reason. They think Hillary can win the main election, sooo, they are praying that Obama gets the nomination—then the proverbial sh*t will hit the fan hard–all us democrats will be very disenheartened, dispirited—-
The die-hard Obama fans will "stay the course" because they will not swallow their pride in their pick, but, the Independents and less disillusioned will jump off the burning band wagon—go to "No Quarter" Larry Johnson "No He Can't Because, Yes, They Will"–google it–read just some of the true stories that are waiting in the wings concerning Obama—not good at all. We need a capable winner. Let's not putz around anymore!
Get thee behind Hillary!
February 18th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Actually, Rebecca, you have it backwards. Republicans want to run against Hillary. They think she can be beaten, because she is a very divisive figure. They have been preparing to run against her for years. It is Obama they fear most. The polls bear that out. Most polls show McCain defeating Hillary. They also show Obama defeating McCain. You can see all the poll results at the realclearpolitics website.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:50 am
"…or should she prevent the bill from being voted upon, thereby allowing the Protect America Act to expire, weakening our country's ability to gather intelligence against foreign terrorist groups like Al Qaeda ?"
Bullsh*t. That's what this is.
The filthy GOP members had an opportunity to extend the Orwellian Protect America Act. They choose not to do so. Therefore, if there has been any "weakening", the fault lies at the feet of the Bush boys and girls.
There is no other way to look at this issue…..unless a person already has their mind made up.
And this….
"The Democratic leadership didn't care. They didn't care about us as a country. They just didn't want to alienate their biggest contributors, the lawyers."
..is just stupid. Sorry, that's what it is. As if the Democrats would carry the torch on this issue for years just to protect donations from trial lawyers. That's ridiculous and you know it.
This is about a lawless president. 70% of the country realizes that.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Yeah Rev, I'm sure the fact that 24 of the 29 Dems who voted against the FISA bill took money from trial lawyers who are suing the telecoms is just one big old coincidence and absolutely irrelevant.
You can't really be THAT naive, can you ?
And Congress had six months to get the FISA bill done, so blaming Bush and Republicans is idiotic.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Well now, Rebecca Ramnytz, as you suggested, I checked out Larry Johnson’s blog “No Quarter.”
Although this Johnson fellow is a certified lefty, he makes a good case that B. Hussein Obama would be a very weak candidate in the general election. [Johnson blog is sure to drive some of the Magic Negro’s sycophants here crazier than they already are.]
Anyway, Johnson bases his argument on Obama’s association with three scandalous scumbag — Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Rashid Khalidi.
Now the truth be told, Johnson is correct on these problems …. but he greatly understates the case that can AND will be made against BO if he is the Dim candidate for the presidency.
Johnson doesn’t mention things like 1) BO’s possible Muslim upbringing, 2) the charges BO engaged in homosexuality behavior, something which would be a big plus in the Dim primary but poison in a general election, 3) the black racist church that BO & his family goes to in Chicago and its vile minister, 4) BO’s relationship with the semi-genocide going on in Kenya right now, 5) BO’s link with the America-hating George Soros, and of course, 6) BO’s complete lack of experience or qualification for the office he seeks.
Larry Johnson laments in his blog that “Obama is treated with a reverence and fawning that I have never seen in my life for a political figure.”
Well, natch. He’s Barack the Magic Negro. He can creates illusions that the dupes fall for in the millions. So the question is: Can Comrade Hillary and her femi-Nazi storm troopers get the Dim Party back in line in time to avoid a disaster in November? Tune in on March 5th to see which way the wind is blowing.
I’m still betting on the old comrade to pull out Ohio. When Hillary puts down her elephantine foot, that’s it. The Dims fall in line …. but the odds are tightening that the Dims might not comply this time.
As I once said, this election is sure entertaining. For even if Comrade Hillary prevails, don't think that her past criminality and scandals will be forgotten. No, no, no. In fact, the comrade hasn't seen anything yet.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
[...] All Da King's Men wrote an interesting post today on Special Interests First, Country SecondHere's a quick excerptShould she bring the new FISA bill to the floor for a vote, where it would certainly pass and be signed into law immediately by President Bush, or should she prevent t… [...]
February 18th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
King, I want to comment on your post before somebody buries it in the Democrat primary fight. It was too true and the fact of that is that Rev Red stomped in with very unReverend sounding words like Bullsh*t to indicate that you were wrong.
Any fool could see what happened that day and why. It certainly wasn't to protect "we the people" as they should have been trying to do. Nope, it was obviously done to protect all those trial lawyers and the millions of dollars they are set to collect from the communications companies. That is the most farcical pile of crap I have ever seen brought to bear by that group but they don't worry about things like that. They worry about the dollars for their pockets. I wonder when they will get around to wondering how to spend that money after the next 9/11 attack.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Roy,
I don't know how our Rev can be such a cynic about all things Republican and then display such naivete about all things Democratic. He's lost inside his own prejudices, unable to tell up from down. It's gotta be that BDS.
He even believes the Dems inane babble that the expiration of the FISA bill is somehow Bush's fault. That was so dumb that I can't even believe nonstop liar Harry Reid said it.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Moderate, logical, Republicans with an understanding and affinity for the US constitution (there are plenty of them out there, believe it or not) are very concerned about the Bush administration's views/policies towards civil rights. In fact, its those government civil cervants that are most concerned.
Also, to pretend Bush is on the side of the intelligence community doesn't understand how he threw them under the bus in the run up to the Iraq War, and blatantly misrepresented what took place inside the halls of government.
The vast majority of concerned Americans find Bush's approach to intelligence disconcerning in more ways than one.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Graham—please read the article I mentioned. My point is not to bash Obama, but to show you how stealthy the republicans are in their thinking–if we don't learn their game, they will win again.
google this: no he can't because yes they will
February 19th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Rebecca,
It is totally unfair and dishonest of Larry Johnson to bash Obama and then pass it off as 'this is what the Republicans will do'. That's just a dirty trick. It's not 'what the Republicans will do' at all, it's 'what Larry Johnson IS doing' that matters.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:25 am
graham,
I don't share your opinion that Bush 'threw the intelligence community under the bus' in the runup to the Iraq war. Nobody forced the CIA to write that NIE that prompted Congress to vote to authorize the war. That flawed intel came from the CIA and others, not from Bush. The belief that Saddam had wmd was nearly universal prior to the war. It wasn't only the Bush administration that believed it, but the Clinton administration before that.
Of course I do share the concern for civil rights, which must be balanced against the need to fight terrorism and the need for national security. I favor giving government the tools they need in a new type of battle against Al Qaeda, but with oversight, always.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Of course President Bush didn't throw the intelligence community under the bus in the run-up to the Iraq war …. or anywhere else for that matter.
In fact, the opposite is the case. Influential elements in the intelligence community (and the State Department) threw the Bush under the bus. They did this by insisting on formulating policy rather than following it, and then subverting the Administration’s policy when it wasn’t to their liking via leaks, passive disobedience.
George Bush brought a lot of this on himself. He kept an incompetent like George Tenant on as head of the CIA and didn’t clean house of the Clintonistas and other leftists in the CIA, State Department, and Justice Department when he came into office in January 2001.
Here, Bush was naïve (dare we say, foolish) to ever think these entrenched liberals would obey the law & their oath of office to follow the president’s policy instead of actively working to undermine it.
Bush acted as if he didn’t know that lefties answer to a higher authority than the U.S. Constitution or the American people, and that is their leftwing causes.
Sadly, even in this day and age, so many in the GOP refuse to recognize the true nature of the liberal — i.e., a subversive.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Vince, finally I have found somebody who I agree completely with about what really happened with the CIA and the Wilson/Plame affair. I wonder if we shouldn't get together for all afternoon coffee or even get drunk while discussing those things without having to wait for the posts to come up.
Seriously I have felt that Bush screwed up by leaving all those leaders in the CIA in position so they could oppose him with the very liberal (subversive) crap they pulled off on him because Dems were willing to go along all the way.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Roy,
We’re not alone. See Kenneth R. Timmerman’s “Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender” for the gory details of the sellout of America from within our own security agencies.
One of the quotes I like best from Timmerman’s book goes something like this. “George Bush didn’t realize that people ARE policy.“
By this Timmerman meant that if you have liberals in important position, the policy will be liberal no matter what the president or Secretary of State says. This is pretty much common sense, you’d think. But Bush didn‘t get it, and he and the country suffered because of it.
If you chose not to buy “Shadow Warriors” or get it from a pubic library, check out the comments on it at Amazon.com They give a good summery. Here’s the link.
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0307352099/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/104-2339146-0428764?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
And Roy, when you write: “Seriously I have felt that Bush screwed up by leaving all those leaders in the CIA in position so they could oppose him with the very liberal (subversive) crap they pulled off on him because Dems were willing to go along all the way,” you’re 100% correct.
Sadly, the mistake Bush made is not one the Dims will make. The Dims know how to play hardball politics while the GOP is so often clueless.
If the Dims win the White House in November, look for them to purge every conservative from the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, State Dept., etc. that is not protected by civil service law. To the Dims, loyalty to the party comes first and foremost.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Wow, wingnut corner, huh?
This….
"Here, Bush was naïve (dare we say, foolish) to ever think these entrenched liberals would obey the law & their oath of office to follow the president’s policy instead of actively working to undermine it."
….is better than something Colbert would come up with…..but the laugh line here is….you didn't mean for it to be funny.
And see, when Roy steps in and agrees with something this funny…..you know it's extra special.
You guys are saying that the problem with Bush's foreign policy, isn't because Bush has been lawless, incompetent and a liar, surrounding himself with only those who agree with that kind of behaviour ….it's that Bush couldn't be lawless enough because leftover liberals wouldn't let him.
What a scream.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:26 am
It is undeniable that a faction within the CIA was working in a partisan faction against Bush's policies. That's where the whole Wilson/Plame fiasco sprang from. Bush didn't generate that, Wilson did, via his CIA connections. The repeated leaking of classified information to the NY Times and others also came from the CIA. You won't hear much about it in the MSM though. Why would you ? The MSM likes the info they are being fed, which sells newspapers, and they are also on the same team as the subversive element within the CIA.
Vince, the political right IS slow to catch on to this kind of politicization. They were slow to catch on to the Dems tactic of politicizing the Supreme Court until Bork and Thomas, but now they are up to speed. Dubya didn't know what hit him with the politicization of the CIA until the damage was done, but now he does know. The kicker is, when the right attempts to push back and politicize the other way, they are crucified in the media for it, while the media gives the left a total pass. To our MSM, when a liberal is appointed to a government post, that is normal, when a conservative is appointed, that is divisive.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Great point on the Supreme Court, King, and how slow America was in seeing what the dims were doing to it.
Whether its the courts, the intelligence agency, the government bureaucracy, it seems the Dims will corrupt anything & everything they touch.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Da King—My Master's is in "Applied Politics" not quite finished with it yet—Larry Johnson is an Obama supporter–perhaps opporational, if you know what I mean.
The stories about Obama are factual—not hearsay. They haven't exposed their big guns yet. Who smoked how many joints with Obama–what he said about white people behind their backs, or black people behind their backs, what woman "might" have had an abortion,and so on. Inuendo can "endo" everything. Just be prepared for a big letdown–that's all.
In the meantime,
I'm just trying to figure out what country will allow a future ex-patriot like me in someday.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Well, Comrade Hillary got smoked in Wisconsin yesterday. It wasn't even close.
The hardcore feminists must be throwing hissy fits acorss the country about now — imagine, Hillary getting "denied" her reward by an unqualified black.
Rebecca is right about one thing. B. Hussein Obama is going to go under the microscope quite soon, and all the political correctness in the world won't save him from the coming exposure.
And why, Rebecca, should anyone be surprised about what what Obama might have "said about white people behind their backs?" His pastor is a screaming black racist, so how could BO be much different? And check out his wife, Michelle, what a dingbat.
Any BO groupie out there care to answer that last question???
February 20th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
No Rebecca, you are mistaken. Larry Johnson is a Hillary supporter. He says so right on his blog. Check the following link:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/12/all-in-for-hillary/
Johnson is doing a hit piece on Obama for Hillary's benefit.
Obama's connection to Rezko is real, but the other stuff strikes me as flimsy based on evidence to date, other than what Vince mentioned about Obama's pastor. That guy has made some racist remarks. I do not think Obama is a racist though. As for Obama's drug past, Obama has already admitted to it, so I don't think there will be much more there. We shall see, I guess. If there was anything really substantive against Obama, Hillary would use it in a NY minute. The Clintons play hardball, and they are political junkyard dogs. They will do anything to win.
I expect the Republicans to fight Obama on the issues. There's plenty there to fight about without resorting to mudslinging. When the Clintons tried to go negative against Obama, it backfired big time.
My, you aren't going to flee the country if Obama wins, are you ?
February 20th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Vince,
Looking at the numbers, it looks like when John Edwards left the race, white men shifted to Obama, and are his strongest voting bloc in sheer numbers. Even women are moving away from Hillary now.
The best line I heard today was from Jay Leno, who said, "like a lot of other women in Washington, Hillary is beginning to realize she slept with Bill Clinton for nothing".
February 21st, 2008 at 8:08 am
"If there was anything really substantive against Obama, Hillary would use it in a NY minute."
No completely so, King. Because it is a Dim primary and they are appealling to the loon left, Comrade Hillary cannot fully attack BO due to the constraints of political correctness. To do so would be counter productiove.
You already see evidence of this. Any criticism of the Magic Negro comes back to haunt the Clintons.
The Republicans not to mention groups not formally aligned to the GOP or McCain, will have much less inhibitions in critiquing BO.
++++
"My, you aren't going to flee the country if Obama wins, are you ?"
Me? I never said that or implied such a thing. But, some fool that posts here implied that I did.
You see, the typical Dim's mind is warped. Beause lefties like Alex Baldwin said they would leave the country if the GOP win in 2000 and /or 2004, the twisted liberal mind projects such anti-patriotic sentiments on those they diaagree with it. This is but one of the many reasons why liberalism is said to be a mental disorder.
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:44 am
You must be kidding. Don't you even bother to do five minutes of research or thinking on those Wall Street Journal editorials before you spit them back up here? These telecom cases are prosecuted by a *nonprofit* public interest firm, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is about as far from being a plaintiff's attorney and as far from wealthy as you can get. The only big money here is from the telecom companies, who have been pumping campaign contributions to both Dems and Republicans trying to get themselves immunity.
The reason the immunity stuff is vital is that those lawsuits are now the only way to get information on what exactly the Bush administration did, and the only way to guarantee that in the future a President Hillary Clinton can't just stroll over to your phone company and ask them to tap your phone or emails because she doesn't like you.
You're right that the FISA law is already bad…because the Administration and the Republicans in Congress won't let anything better through. As you well know, the Democrats don't even have a real Senate majority — they have to caucus with Joe Leiberman, an Independent who is Administration-friendly and endorsing John McCain. Anything Leiberman doesn't support, they can't get through. And they certainly can't override a veto.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Well said mq.
The right would have Americans believe that Democrats want Islamic extremists to be successful in destroying the U.S. That's the Republican attack message in this 4th amendment/FISA standoff. Be scared, Democrats want all of us to die.
The simple truth that most reality based Americans understand is that the only reason Bush/McConnell/ Mukasey and the ususal suspects are making so much noise about this issue…..is to protect the president, and thus the Republican Party, from devastatingly illegal behaviour becoming public knowledge in ongoing telecom lawsuits.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Rev,
Please cite for me the law that Bush broke by asking the telecoms for phone records on suspected terrorists.
February 24th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I've asked you before whether you believed in American's right to privacy. That's the right being violated.
And please…..why do you continue to push falsehoods?
Bush entered into a vaccumming of communications program with AT&T in February of 2001. He wasn't asking for "phone records on suspected terrorists". 9-11 was 7 months away and he dimissed Richard Clarke's warnings as leftover Clinton BS.
Bush/Cheney and Rove came into power in 2001 hellbent on establishing a permanent GOP majority. They planned to do so by hook or crook. That's what the spying, the unitary executive theory, and the Justice Department scandal are really all about.
You still trust that these same guys have been telling the truth all along. I have never trusted them.