Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Mild-mannered Dem senator flips his lid

Posted by Guest Blogger at 9:46 AM on April 18, 2007.


Attempt to list intel spending and interrogation tactics starts Senate spat.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Also in PEEK

Sarah Palin's Reckless Approach to Health Care
Julia Eisman Stand Up for Health Care

Election Observer Arrested in Arizona
Steven Rosenfeld AlterNet

Will Sarah Palin Have An Effect on the Women's Vote?
Heather Gehlert AlterNet

From Dailykos Poster taraka das:

Moments after the Republicans in the Senate heeded a call from the White House to vote against cloture on debate for the bill FUNDING THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller took the floor, visibly enraged. [VIDEO]

Now, Rockefeller has to be one of the coolest heads in the Senate. He isn't rolled easily. In his speech, he denounced the BETRAYAL of his committee, including the ranking member, Kit Bond, by the White house, who, according to Rockefeller, put out the word that defeating the cloture vote was a matter of party loyalty.

Watching this exchange, it was difficult to understand WHY the White House would do this. But a few of the captions given on C-span about the bill lent clues.

Here are some of the features in the bill:

Under the legislation, Bush would have to tell lawmakers about interrogation tactics at the [secret CIA] prisons, and the government would be required to publicly reveal total spending on intelligence programs, which is estimated to be about $44 billion annually.

Now THAT'S interesting. Oversight that REQUIRES Bush to tell lawmakers EXACTLY what happens at these "black sites." DEFEATED AS A MATTER OF PARTY LOYALTY.

But wait, there's more!

Under the legislation, the maximum prison sentence would increase to 15 years from 10 years for those who disclose the identity of a covert agent, a response to administration officials revealing the secret status of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Think that struck a nerve? Perhaps.

I intended to write this diary with rather cursory documentation, but I decided to see if I could find the actual bill. And I did find it. Here. And Here.

Enroute to looking up the language of the bill, I found this article, which led me to the actual bill. I was struck by the following passage:

The Bush administration has characterized the contested provisions as being "inconsistent with the need for the effective conduct of intelligence activities," and threatening the security of "intelligence sources, methods, and activities from unauthorized disclosure."

REALLY? REALLY? That's the claim being made? Let's take a look at specific language in the bill:

Title IV: Matters Relating to Elements of the Intelligence Community - Subtitle A: Office of the Director of National Intelligence - (Sec. 401) Amends the National Security Act of 1947 to authorize the DNI, using National Intelligence Program funds, to: (1) direct the development, deployment, and utilization of systems related to the collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence information; and (2) transfer funds to address critical gaps in intelligence information sharing or access capabilities.

(Sec. 402) Allows the DNI to delegate to any Deputy Director of National Intelligence or the Chief Information Officer of the Intelligence Community the authority to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.

Interesting eh? Read the whole Jurist piece. Apparently, it's all those inspector generals that Bush has a problem with. It's all the requirements to provide information to the Congress that he has a problem with. But those aren't meant to have any impact on "intelligence sources, methods, and activities." No. What THOSE parts of the bill address are ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL exercises of power:

Title III: Intelligence and General Intelligence Community Matters

(Sec. 302) Specifies that the authorization of appropriations by this Act shall not be deemed to constitute authority for the conduct of any intelligence activity which is not otherwise authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

I recommend readers read the all the information given here about the bill. If you read it all, you will see why Bush opposes this bill and has threatened to VETO IT. It throws the "unitary executive" theory right out the window and REQUIRES active consultation with the Congress on intelligence policy. Not only that, but it strips the Secretary of Defense of the CURRENT authority he has over an entire spy agency, installs inspector generals in several spy agencies that currently do not have one (including the CIA!), requires the DNI to consult with the Attorney General on issues that are constitutionally questionable, and prevents the CIA from assuming command over DOD personnel.

And that's not even everything. With regard to Bush's sovereign pretensions, the bill cuts his balls off! The bill installs checks and balances meant to prevent abuses of power.

Finally, I offer the Congressional Record that preceded the cloture vote and aftermath I saw on C-span. Tucked in the middle of this, is an amendment offered by Republican Sen Collins. And what do you think it's about?

The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr.     Lieberman, Mr. Carper, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Akaka, proposes     an amendment numbered 847 to amendment No. 843.

The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To reaffirm the constitutional and statutory protections         accorded sealed domestic mail, and for other purposes)

A germane amendment, I would say! But I digress. The record shows what happened next. Here is Rockefeller's rage, after the cloture vote:

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I have to declare myself absolutely a series of things: furious, double-crossed, misled, minimized--in terms of my role as a Senator and as chairman of the Intelligence Committee--shocked by the arrogance of the technique that was used between the White House and the minority leader to say to Republicans, after weeks in which Vice Chairman Bond and I worked out a compromise on a managers' amendment on which we worked in good faith--I dropped things he did not like, he dropped things I did not like--but it was a genuine effort.

 Vice Chairman Bond, whom I respect greatly, stood here praising the managers' amendment. Then the word came down from the White House--not from Vice Chairman Bond but from the White House--through the minority leader, that this vote was to be a test of Republican Party loyalty and that therefore all Republicans were instructed to vote against it.  In all of my years in the Senate, and certainly all of my years on the Intelligence Committee, I have never seen something so repugnant, putting politics over national security. That is the bottom line. Politics was put over national security.

It's not an exaggeration. This isn't a bill to fund the 16 spy agencies and implement recommendations from the 9/11 commission for NEXT year, it's a bill for THIS YEAR, which wasn't passed by the last Congress.

I only gave the first two paragraph's of Rockefeller's furious reaction. Click on the link and read it all. The words on the page don't begin to convey what I saw on C-span. Rockefeller positively BLASTED the Republicans for this betrayal.

It's worth giving some play to the Republican's protests, since the answer to them is so damning. McConnel claimed that invoking cloture was a ploy to deny the Republicans the opportunity to offer amendments. Harry Reid spoke to that empty and false lament at the very end of the record given here:

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the senior Senator from Missouri, but his facts are all messed up. We tried to bring this bill to the floor for a full debate. In the Senate, as everyone knows, you have to move to proceed to the bill. We did that. They objected. We had to file cloture on even being able to proceed to the bill. They initially said: We are not going to give you cloture. Then they gave us cloture. The purpose of that was to stall for time. They voted to proceed. I said immediately: Why waste the 30 hours? The rule in the Senate is you have 30 hours after you complete the cloture. I said: Offer amendments during this period of time. Don't waste the time. We could have done that last week. I told everybody. All the staff knew that: But no, nothing. I indicated we would be happy to do relevant amendments on this bill.

That's not all Reid said. He didn't dispense with the lame arguments the Republicans gave about amendments til the end of this speech. Here's some excerpts from his speech:

Mr. President, let's call it the way it is. Vice President Cheney runs the intelligence operations of this administration. He has for 6 years. It apparently is not going to stop. We could not even improve the intelligence-gathering operations for the 16 agencies because it may interfere with the Vice President.

Think he was pissed? Read the whole thing. He brought up Scooter Libby, too.

To conclude, this story about the funding for our spy agencies which the WHITE HOUSE ordered shut down on a "party loyalty" vote, and turning mild mannered Jay Rockefeller into an inferno of fury on the Senate Floor, is something that was missed entirely by the MSM, but well worth reporting.

It will have consequences. We might have moved another step closer to the realization that impeachment of Bush and Cheney really is the only option. Make each and every one of these "party loyalists" acquit Bush in the face of a mountain of evidence for staggering crimes. Let them ride loyalty to Bush all the way to defeat in 2008.  


Sarah Palin's Reckless Approach to Health Care
Just like John McCain, Palin is putting private market interests before consumers.
Post by Julia Eisman. September 7, 2008.
Election Observer Arrested in Arizona
Will cops crack down on election observers in November?
Post by Steven Rosenfeld. September 7, 2008.
Will Sarah Palin Have An Effect on the Women's Vote?
A recent survey shows mixed results.
Post by Heather Gehlert. September 7, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Why do we even need Senators?
Posted by: lb on Apr 18, 2007 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Silly me, I thought we elected Senators to vote for US. I guess they are superfluous if the White House tells them how to vote. We could save a lot of money if we didn't have to pay Senators or have elections for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why do we even need Senators? Posted by: Ian MacLeod
No Surprises Here
Posted by: sphoenix on Apr 18, 2007 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read your Roman history...this is the same damn stuff that has been going on for the last 3000 years. Start with a republic, get the gentrified wealth in place at high levels in the government, and then marginalize the Senate and Representatives. After that you appoint your best and most loyal buddies to high level cabinet positions and ignore the House and Senate. Next thing you know we have an Emperor...will there really be an election in '08?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Election next year? Posted by: truthteller
» RE: No Surprises Here Posted by: Ian MacLeod
No big surprise here
Posted by: bookie on Apr 18, 2007 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kit Bond is from my own state of Missouri. He always goes along with the party line no matter how evil or stupid. I keep tabs on him with Google and I WAS surprised when I read that he was being co operative with Rockerfeller. Now I see he is just reverting to form. I believe he successfully retains his senate seat here because he is so good at bringing home the bacon to Missouri. Never mind worrying over what might be good for the nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No big surprise here Posted by: shanaza
Thanks for posting the taraka das entry here
Posted by: eddie torres on Apr 18, 2007 11:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
taraka das did a good job of explaining what appears to be a major Cover-Your-Ass operation that many Democrats are also embroiled in. And there's around 180 comments over at Daily Kos on this entry.

The mainstream media laid this "US government intelligence abuses" thing to rest over a year ago - narrowing the scope of the issue and generally implying that interrogation tactics and incarceration of GWOT suspects had "softened" and prisoners would get "trials" and Gitmo would be "closed". Eventually.

Just in time to prevent the conduct of GWOT from being a major 2006 election issue. Instead, bring-the-troops-home and how-come-I'm-still-poor topped the Republican-Democrat agenda. Because neither Republican leaders nor Democrat leaders are afraid of keeping Americans poor or in harms way in Iraq.

But both sides, Rockefeller included, are terrified of the return to the US of the men ordered to shove soldering irons into blindfolded foreigners in converted shipping containers at undisclosed locations. Some of those "agents" will talk. Eventually. And the Washington crowd better lawyer-up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Politics over national security?
Posted by: badkitty on Apr 18, 2007 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excuse me, was "politics over national security" news to Senator Rockefeller? The Republicans, and most Democrats, have put politics over national security every time they've voted, especially to support the illegal war in Iraq, which NIEs for over a year have said has endangered our country more than it was before the war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't get it.
Posted by: Sojourner on Apr 18, 2007 5:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush threatened a week ago to veto the bill unless it was changed. It would have been a huge, huge defeat for the administration. The bill adds restrictions that have never been imposed before. As the Kos contributor explains, it would require the administration to reveal information it considers highly sensitive.

So what's the surprise? Is it surprising that Bush can throw around his weight in the senate? Is he supposed to roll over and wimper? Gimmer a break. As it turned out, the Demos only had 40 votes. So it wasn't even close.

Yes, it sounds like it was a good and necessary piece of legislation to me. But what's with all the finger wagging and cluck clucking?

Maybe that's why I don't read Daily Kos any longer. Hard to get a straight story over there. Is AlterNet developing a similar addiction to drama...whatever the justification?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lemmings
Posted by: charemor on Apr 19, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before the Republicans blindly give Bush and Co everything they ask for, like lemmings jumping over a cliff, they should be reminded that the White House will not always be occupied by a Republican. Do they really want a Democratic president to have these same powers of kingship?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]