home

Chris Dodd on the FISA Capitulation

Glenn Greenwald interviewed Senator Chris Dodd (my guy in the Presidential sweepstakes) about the FISA Capitualtion:

GG: Can you describe what you think it is that motivated 16 of your colleagues in the Democratic caucus to vote in favor of this bill?

CD: No, I really can't . . . We had caucuses during the day, so everyone knew what was there. You had a vote at 10:00 at night, people say I didn't know what was there, then normally I can understand, but we had a caucus during the day. There was a lot of conversation about it.

GG: So this wasn't a Patriot Act case where people can claim ignorance because there was a rushed vote? There was a careful assessment of what the terms in this statute were?

CD: Absolutely. In fact, even during the vote, Carl Levin was sitting there, and Carl said: "look, I want everyone to read this" . . . . Most people know about the Gonzales references and the 180 days -- there is also a section, as Carl pointed out, that basically says that if they can prove reasonably that you're out of the country -- not that you're not a citizen, just out of the country [then they can eavesdrop on you] . . . .

But I wish I had a better explanation. Normally after that, we would be in session Monday or Tuesday, around today, people would be talking about it. So I'm a little stunned, and grasping for some answer here. So I really don't know. . . .

GG: There is this gap in FISA, which everyone, even Russ Feingold, says needs to be filled, which is that if there is a foreign-to-foreign conversation which happens to be routed through the U.S., it requires a warrant -- so why not just say "OK, we fixed this gap and here's our bill and if you veto it, and there's a terrorist attack, then it's your responsibility"?

CD: Hello? Sounds pretty reasonable to me. But part of what this comes down to is that too many people in public life are not secure enough in their own beliefs -- feel vulnerable to attacks by people who will attack you -- and feel unwilling or unable to respond to them with clarity and conviction. And if you lack that clarity and conviction, and if you haven't been through this in the past, then you're likely to be a little weaker in the legs.

Dodd is a "tough guy." Jim Webb is a wimp.

< The WaPo Editorial Board In a Nutshell | Leaving Chicago, Praise for Midway >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    vulgarities ? (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by RedHead on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:32:14 AM EST
    I thought vulgarities were forbidden?

    You shouldn't get so emotional.

    If you can't take the heat, turn on the A/C.

    I am not part of the "stop-dodd" movement (the phone booth is too crowded, as it is).  I have not contributed to any candidate, although I'd contribute to see a full length feature of "obama girl"  I did not lexis/nexis Dodd's statements on trusting bush and invading iraq.

    I never used the word "mistake"  whether you wear Dodd colors or not is meaningless.

    the topic was courage, and the lack thereof (not vision or judgment or even redemption).  Senator Dodd will not receive a "Profile in Courage" award for capitulating to Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld in 2002.

    I just notice this. (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by RedHead on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 01:49:23 AM EST
    The invasion vote occured at 12:50 AM

    they voted in the middle of the nite, under the cover of darkness.  

    how craven.

    Shame, Senator Dodd, shame.  

    Instead of standing with wes clark and gov dean, you stood with Zell Miller and the "mushroom cloud" person.

    He must never go swimminng -- the yellow streak on his back must be embarrassing.

    Shame, shame.

    Greenwald Opines: (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:16:39 PM EST
    it is clear that Beltway Democrats have no real strategy for doing anything differently or even any real awareness that something different is necessary.
    We've figured out that members of the press are lazy and of generally middling inteligence. Couldn't the same be said for much of the Beltway Democratic establishment?

    Press in-depth analysis? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sumner on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:26:26 PM EST
    We've figured out that members of the press are lazy...

    Ehm, what do you call this? (YouTube)

    Parent

    The Clinton Experience (none / 0) (#2)
    by BDB on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:18:01 PM EST
    I just finished reading Bernstein's biography of Hillary Clinton and one of the things that struck me was that she was complaining in 1980 that the Democrats were "weak."  Not weak on issues like national defense and crime, but politically weak.  They didn't fight, they caved.  And then when she and Bill Clinton got to D.C., they were shocked to find Gephardt and others more interested in sucking up to their Republican colleagues across the aisle than defending/supporting the democratic president.  

    The sad thing is that even after so much about the Republican spin machine has been revealed (e.g. The Hunting of the President) and the Republicans have been driven to near collapse that so many Democrats continue to behave as they always have.  Not all of them, but enough of them.  It's like they never freaking learn.  The rightwing spin machine is never going to say nice things about Democrats.  They will always be weak - on terrorists, on criminals, on whatever issue can be used to scare the public.  But the best way to fight this is not to change to the Republican position (which makes it seem like they are right), but to not be weak politically.  

    Gah.  It's like watching a small child touch a hot stove, get burned, and then touch it again.  And again.  And again.  

    Enigma (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:38:16 PM EST
    CD: No, I really can't . . . We had caucuses during the day, so everyone knew what was there. You had a vote at 10:00 at night, people say I didn't know what was there, then normally I can understand, but we had a caucus during the day. There was a lot of conversation about it.

    So it is either that the 16 were weak, and fell once again for the weak on terror meme (double weak) or that they were somehow blackmailed.

    Not hard to believe given the players.

    Isn't that what the Bush FISA bill is all about? Keeping tabs on anyone deemed a threat to Bush? Nadler named it directly, although he wimped out in the end, god knows why?

    Why were you not there? (none / 0) (#5)
    by timber on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:23:39 PM EST
    You should whipped up the netroots to be more forceful in demanding Defunding Iraq and bringing troops home.

    Perhaps with the new name--hopefully you will be attending next year and moderating a panel?

    Who is in control of what comes up for vote? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Fr33d0m on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:27:40 PM EST
    The leadership should have known what the vote would be.  That makes them as responsible as the "weak" dems.  

    at the moment, i am embarassed to admit (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:44:49 PM EST
    i voted for jim webb. i don't get it, what happens to these guys, that they suddenly become so emasculated, once they get elected to congress?

    Time to do something about the wusses! (none / 0) (#8)
    by Scarabus on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:57:52 PM EST
    Too much talk. Time for action.

    Democratic congresspersons are either wusses or are doing a really good job of pretending to be. Doesn't matter which. Either way they'll be forever morally complicit in turning our democracy into a dictatorship. That's a given, and we don't need to keep repeating the mantra. Time to do something about it.

    Ordinarily, one would prefer to know the cause of the symptoms before recommending a cure, but that might not be an option here. For one thing, different congresspersons might be driven by different motivations. Perhaps we should just cut to the cure.

    During WW II my uncle served under General George Patton and was very much in awe of the guy (which didn't prevent his laughing at Patton's polished helmet-liner headgear and his pearl- or bone-handled pistol). Closest I came to Patton was George C. Scott's portrayal in the movie. Don't know whether this incident from the movie really happened, but it would definitely have been consistent with what we know of Patton's character. Asked how he was going to pull a demoralized division into fighting trim, Scott/Patton said, "I'm gonna make them more afraid of me than they are of the Germans!"

    Perhaps it's time to make the congressional wusses more afraid of us than they are of Faux News and talk radio. Yes, some good things have happened since the last election. But at what cost? The Dems are providing some better healthcare and such for the passengers; they're investigating the incompetence of the crew; but, like the Titanic, our democracy is sinking from beneath our feet. So we'll have better healthcare in the brief interval before we drown. Thanks, folks!

    Yeah, we're better off with Democrats in the majority than with Republicans. But those Democrats don't have to be the current incumbents! After all, if the jerks help the neo-cons turn our democracy into a dictatorship, then what difference does it make whether their names are followed by "(D)" or by "(R)"? We're living in Orwell's 1984 just the same. The net can help candidates get elected, and the net can help candidates get un-elected. I'm tired of settling for the lesser of two or more evils. I want to vote for someone good!

    "tough guy" Dodd voted for the Invasion (none / 0) (#9)
    by RedHead on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:37:06 PM EST
    Senate vote #237

    Question:  On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
    Date:     October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM

    Measure Title:     A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

    Mr. Dodd: --->> AYE

    With "tough guys" like this who needs wimps.

    I have no brief for webb, and everyone is welcomed to support whom ever, but Dodd signing a "blank check" and gave it to Bush.  Hardly the mark of a "tough guy."

    Yes, and he learned. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:49:09 PM EST
    VIDEO: May 23, 2007
    Senator and Presidential candidate Chris Dodd today released the following statement on the latest Iraq supplemental bill:

    "This war has gone on longer than World War II and there is no end in sight. Yet we are less secure and more isolated than before. We have lost 3,400 patriotic Americans and shattered our standing in the world. We are spending $2 billion a week - $8 billion a month - and are now caught in the middle of a civil war. Still, this President wants more of the same and this bill would give him his wish.

    "I cannot and will not simply give this President another blank check.

    Roll Call: May 24, 2007

    Dodd (D-CT), Nay  


    Parent
    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by RedHead on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 06:09:37 PM EST
    Even Dodd openly calls it a "blank check"

    To bad he wasn't "tough" enough to join 23 other senators, wes clark, and dean and oppose the "blank check" in 2002.

    please, you really didn't mean to say it took Dodd five years to "learn" this lesson.

    Senator Dodd just called, he said "stop helping me."

    These people (Dodd, Obama, Webb, etc.) are not "tough guys."  They're not your friends. Oh, they may do business with you, but they don't like you (he supported Lieberman in the primary).

    Oh, just in case, I'm not in favor of impeachment..

    Parent

    Yes, it can be a problem (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 06:37:00 PM EST
    sometimes the uniform only hides a wimp.  Sometimes a REAL tough guy doesn't need a uniform to define himself and hide behind.  P.S. hide this comment so that my husband never sees it and cuts me off.  I'm not talking about you honey, just a few other uniforms that are out there but not you.

    It ::would be:: too bad (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 06:47:52 PM EST
    if more people learned, however slowly.

    The Iraq Occupation might end up defunded and ended.

    Or the FISA Amendment might end up being repealed.

    Or something else equally ridiculous might happen.