Will McCain Pick Lieberman as Veep?

Think Progress » Lieberman: McCain ‘Almost Always Right On The Big Issues Of Foreign Policy Over The Last 20 Years’

On the 2/12 edition of Bill Bennett’s radio show, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) explained that he was supporting
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for president because he believes that
withdrawal from Iraq would “abandon” the country “to the killers” and
“empower them to come after us again.” “McCain will never let that
happen,” claimed Lieberman.

“The guy has been almost always right on the big issues of foreign
policy over the last twenty years,” said Lieberman. “That’s why I want
him to be my president,” he added.

Lieberman is now claiming that McCain has a nearly spotless foreign
policy record, but in reality, McCain was an ardent supporter of the “worst strategic mistake
in the history of the United States.” In fact, McCain was one of the
most prominent voices telling the American people that Iraq would be
“easy” and that Americans would be “welcomed as liberators“:

“And I believe that the success will be fairly easy.” [CNN, Larry King Live, 9/24/02]

“I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time.” [CNN Late Edition, 9/29/02]

“Do you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?” “Absolutely. Absolutely,” replied McCain. [MSNBC, Hardball, 3/12/03]

“There’s no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone that we will be welcomed as liberators.” [MSNBC, Hardball, 3/24/03]

In the same segment, Lieberman stressed that “you’ve got to take
people at their word.” Unfortunately, too many Americans did take John
McCain at his word when he said Iraq would be “easy.”

Think Progress » Lieberman Defends Waterboarding: It’s ‘Not Like Putting Burning Coals On People’s Bodies’

“It is not like putting burning coals on people’s bodies. The person is in no real danger. The impact is psychological,” Lieberman said.

Lieberman appears to be mimicking his close friend Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) pandering to the right wing. Like Lieberman, McCain voted against banning waterboarding this week, even though he had previously called the technique “very exquisite torture.”

Until recently, Lieberman had also raised objections to the Bush administration’s interrogation practices….

Which McCain?

Think Progress » New McCain Rips Old McCain’s Argument That Bush Tax Cuts Benefit The ‘Wealthy’

On ABC’s This Week today, host George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) about Democratic proposals to protect “middle-income Americans” and “only raise” taxes “on the wealthy.” In response, McCain bristled at Stephanopoulos’s distinction, mockingly warning against rhetoric that talks about “who the, quote, ‘wealthy’ are in America”:

MCCAIN: But more importantly, we’ll argue about whether we should increase your taxes or decrease them. Obviously, I’m for decreases in taxes. Maybe Americans want their taxes increased. We’ll argue about…

STEPHANOPOULOS: … for middle-income Americans, only raise them on the wealthy?

MCCAIN: Oh, yes, sure, the wealthy, the wealthy. Always be interested in when people talk about who the, quote, “wealthy” are in America. I find it interesting.

Now that he has to court the hardline anti-tax factions of the conservative movement, McCain is changing his story on tax policy. In 2000, 2001, and 2003, McCain was one of the people “interested” in talking about “who the, quote, ‘wealthy’ are in America” when he argued against Bush’s tax cuts that “mostly benefit the wealthy“:

“There’s one big difference between me and the others–I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy.” [McCain campaign commercial, January 2000]

“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]

“But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that–as the previous tax cuts–that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans.” [NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003]

McCain now appears more interested in protecting the “wealthy” than he does in straight talk.

Think Progress » New McCain Rips Old McCain’s Argument That Bush Tax Cuts Benefit The ‘Wealthy’

Which McCain is Right?

Think Progress » McCain: I Have ‘An Extensive Background And Knowledge’ On The Economy

Last night during an interview with CNN’s Larry King,
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) tried to make the argument that, among the
remaining presidential candidates, he is best suited to address “the
economic challenges we face” because of his “extensive background” and
“knowledge” of the economy.

McCain’s claim does not hold up to his own scrutiny. Throughout the
past eight years, and as recently as last December, McCain has
acknowledged on a number of occasions that he knows very little about
the economy:

– Seeking to explain his shift to the left on economic issues, McCain claimed: “I didn’t pay nearly the attention to those issues in the past. I was probably a ’supply-sider’ based on the fact that I really didn’t jump into the issue.” [Jan. 2000]

– “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.” [Nov. 2005]

– “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” but “I’ve got Greenspan’s book.” [Dec. 2007]

On the issue of whether he’s prepared to lead on the economy, it sounds like John McCain needs to convince himself before he can convince others.

Feel Better, New Mexico?

New York City Still Tallying Votes | The Trail | washingtonpost.com 

By Robin Shulman
NEW YORK — It’s been 15 days since Super Tuesday, but New York City is still waiting to find out if Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton won the most-contested areas.

The Board of Elections has acknowledged that errors in reporting the election day tallies made it appear that Obama had received not a single vote in 55 election districts, when in reality his votes had simply not been counted, said Valerie Vazquez-Rivera, a spokeswoman for the board. In another 27 districts, Obama actually received no votes, she said.

Vazquez-Rivera attributed the discrepancies to human error as exhausted inspectors rushed to copy columns of numbers to be delivered to the police and then to the press.

“People have been working 16 and 17 hour days,” she said. “There were instances where they just left the Obama field blank.”

But Tuesday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, described the results as “fraud.”

“If you want to call it significant undercounting, I guess that’s a euphemism for fraud,” the mayor said.

No election districts reported that Clinton received no votes.

New York City Still Tallying Votes | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

ABQjournal: Wilson Up Front in Protest

ABQjournal xgr: Wilson Up Front in Protest
By Michael Coleman
Of the Journal
    Republicans walked out of the U.S. House in a huff Thursday in part because the Democratic leadership refused to bring the Protect America Act to a vote and make it permanent.
    Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., a member of the House intelligence committee and a staunch advocate for the legislation, was near the front of the protest line.
    The act passed with a six-month lifespan last year, but it expired Friday. It allowed intelligence officials to intercept phone calls and e-mails from foreigners without a warrant even if their communication was routed through the United States.
    Republicans also want retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the government spy on suspects after Sept. 11.
    As House Republicans streamed out of the Capitol in protest Thursday morning, Wilson walked to the front of the pack and stood next to House Minority Leader John Boehner on the Capitol steps.
    On Friday, she was still seething over what she described as an act of breathtaking irresponsibility by Democrats on matters of national security. A vote to extend the act by 15 days to allow time for a compromise failed to pass the House.
    “It means that, at midnight tonight, we no longer have the authority to follow a new tip and listen to a foreigner in a foreign country who might be plotting against us,” Wilson told me by phone on Friday.
    Well, at least not without a warrant.
The existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act still allows U.S. intelligence officials to wiretap phones, but they need a judge’s permission.
    Wilson argues that court approval can sometimes take a couple of days— precious time when a plot might be unfolding.
    Existing wiretaps established under the six-month law will not expire for a year, even if the bill is not immediately renewed.
    Democrats who oppose the legislation, including Sen. Jeff Bingaman and Rep. Tom Udall of New Mexico, contend that Republicans are creating a overly dramatic, sky-is-falling scenario, and that the legislation is unnecessarily invasive.
    “This legislation not only fails to adequately protect the rights of Americans, but it also unnecessarily grants telecom companies retroactive immunity for assisting the government with an unlawful wiretapping program,” Bingaman said last week. “Frankly, I believe we should be doing a better job protecting the liberties of Americans.”
    Wilson said foreigners don’t deserve the same high standard of probable cause that the U.S. insists on before granting warrants to spy on American citizens suspected of crimes.
    “The real problem is when you can’t meet those high standards— and sometimes you can’t,” Wilson said. “It should never even have been required for foreigners in foreign countries who are trying to spy on us.”
    Wilson said she will keep urging House leaders to change the law permanently when Congress returns from its Presidents Day recess later this month.
    “We have to do this,” she said. “It’s absolutely vital.”

ABQjournal xgr: Wilson Up Front in Protest

Bush Lies

Think Progress » In Radio Address, Bush Hypes Consequences of Wiretapping Law Expiration

In his weekly radio address, President Bush not only blames Congress for tonight’s expiration of the Protect America Act, he says that his government will have a harder time keeping you safe:

Because Congress failed to act, it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack. At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad. This means that as terrorists change their tactics to avoid our surveillance, we may not have the tools we need to continue tracking them — and we may lose a vital lead that could prevent an attack on America.

Nothing about the measure’s expiration prevents either law enforcement or intelligence officials from carrying out new surveillance against suspected terrorists. They will simply need to get a warrant. Nor is exigency a factor, as warrants can even be obtained after the surveillance has begun.

Furthermore, Bush’s hype over tonight’s midnight expiration is undermined by the words of his own top aides. Just 24 hours ago, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told NPR:

Some of the [surveillance] authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that’s not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector.

McConnell let slip that the real goal in the debate over the Protect America Act is not to protect America, but to protect the telecommunication companies being sued for assisting in Bush’s illegal wiretapping. The president claims he wants to protect these companies to ensure their future cooperation. However, legal warrants compel cooperation.

The only reason to insist on telecom immunity is that the telecom lawsuits are the only remaining avenue for bringing to light the administration’s illegal activities. And that is what Bush and his conservative allies will not permit, regardless of how real the cost is to America’s intelligence-gathering apparatus.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/16/bush-paa-deadline/
– – – – –

The Page – by Mark Halperin – TIME

In order to be able to discover enemy — the enemy’s plans, we need the cooperation of telecommunication companies. If these companies are subjected to lawsuits that could cost them billions of dollars, they won’t participate; they won’t help us; they won’t help protect America. [mjh: Why do Republicans defend corporations if those corporations are so un-American?] Liability protection is critical to securing the private sector’s cooperation with our intelligence efforts. The Senate has passed a good bill, and has shown that protecting our nation is not a partisan issue. And I congratulate the senators.

Unfortunately, the House has failed to pass a good bill. And now House leaders say they want still more time to reach agreement with the Senate on a final bill. They make this claim even though it is clear that the Senate bill, the bill passed last night, has significant
bipartisan support in the House.

Congress has had over six months to discuss and deliberate. The time for debate is over. I will not accept any temporary extension. House members have had plenty of time to pass a good bill. They have already been given a two-week extension beyond the deadline they set for
themselves. If Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can come together on a good piece of legislation, there is no reason why Republicans and Democrats in the House cannot pass the Senate bill immediately.

The House’s failure to pass the bipartisan Senate bill would jeopardize the security of our citizens. As Director McConnell has told me, without this law, our ability to prevent new attacks will be weakened. And it will become harder for us to uncover terrorist plots. We must not allow this to happen. It is time for Congress to ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. It is time for Congress to pass a law that provides a long-term foundation to protect our country. And they must do so immediately.

– – – – –

Think Progress » Experts: FISA will suffice as PAA expires.

On its front page today, the conservative Washington Times reports that “intelligence scholars and analysts outside the government say that today’s expiration of certain temporary domestic wiretapping laws will have little effect on national security, despite warnings to the contrary by the White House and Capitol Hill Republican leaders.” One scholar said “there’s no reason to think” America is “in any more danger” than it’s already been in since 9/11:

Timothy Lee, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, said the last time Congress overhauled FISA — after the September 11 terrorist attacks — President Bush praised the action, saying the new law “recognizes the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist.”

“Those are the rules we’ll be living under after the Protect America Act expires this weekend,” Mr. Lee added. “There’s no reason to think our nation will be in any more danger in 2008 than it was in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/16/experts-fisa-will-suffice-as-paa-expires/
– – – – –

NPR: What Happens If Protect America Act Expires?

In August, Congress passed the Protect America Act, which granted the Bush administration legal authority to spy on Americans’ communications overseas without individual warrants. That law expires Saturday, and Congress is deadlocked on a new bill to replace it.

President Bush says to delay is dangerous, but many intelligence experts, including Suzanne Spaulding, say very little will actually change Saturday, even if the bill is allowed to expire.

Spaulding, who spent 20 years working on national security issues for the government and is now a private attorney in Washington, D.C., talks with Michelle Norris.

– – – – –

House Defies Bush on Wiretaps
By Dan Eggen and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers

Democrats immediately said that the expiration of the temporary law would have little, if any, immediate impact on intelligence gathering. “He has nothing to offer but fear,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters after Bush’s address.

“I regret your reckless attempt to manufacture a crisis over the reauthorization of foreign surveillance laws,” Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in a letter to Bush, in defense of his colleagues in the House. “Instead of needlessly frightening the country, you should work with Congress in a calm, constructive way.”

House Defies Bush on Wiretaps

Scalia Defends Torture

[I]n an interview with BBC Radio’s Law in Action, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended torture, claiming that it is not necessarily barred by the Constitution:

Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited under the Constitution? Because smacking someone in the face would violate the 8th amendment in a prison context. You can’t go around smacking people about.

Is it obvious that what can’t be done for punishment can’t be done to exact information that is crucial to this society? It’s not at all an easy question, to tell you the truth.

The BBC interviewer, however, objected to Scalia’s use of the so-called “ticking time bomb” scenario to justify government torture. “It’s a bizarre scenario,” he said. “Because the fact is, it’s very unlikely you’re going to have the one person who can give you that information. So if you use that as an excuse to commit torture, perhaps that’s a dangerous thing.” Scalia responded:

Seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face. It would be absurd to say that.

Think Progress » Scalia Defends Torture: It’s ‘Absurd’ To Say The Gov’t Can’t ‘Smack’ A Suspect ‘In The Face’

A glance at incidents or comments involving Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that prompted calls for him to step aside in individual Supreme Court cases.

The Associated Press: A Glance at Scalia Controversies

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." — Sam Adams