Sunday, August 19, 2007
And they accuse the Bush administration of incompetence
For a crew that claims a huge advantage in "competence," this is a rather extraordinary unforced error:
Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said....
Administration officials acknowledged that they had heard such concerns from Democrats in Congress recently, and that there was a continuing debate over the meaning of the legislative language. But they said the Democrats were simply raising theoretical questions based on a harsh interpretation of the legislation.
They also emphasized that there would be strict rules in place to minimize the extent to which Americans would be caught up in the surveillance.
The dispute illustrates how lawmakers, in a frenetic, end-of-session scramble, passed legislation they may not have fully understood and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought.
Yes, you read that right: Nancy Pelosi gave George Bush more power than he wanted. I guess that is what happens when you are in a hurry to get away for your summer vacation.
Even I am relieved that this law expires in six months.
12 Comments:
By 
Georg Felis, at
Sun Aug 19, 11:56:00 AM:
Um, Pelosi voted no, at least according to the vote record I found.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-836
I had to check, because Boyda (my Dem rep) has been voting identically to Pelosi, and I knew she was against it. It's nice that San Francisco gets two representatives, but next year I hope they give ours back.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Aug 19, 12:03:00 PM:
Pelosi voted against, but she does control the House. I'm guessing the bill would not have made it to the floor in time if she had not permitted it.
By JorgXMcKie, at
Sun Aug 19, 01:27:00 PM:
Pelosi *could* have held up the legislation (at least in theory, in practice the needs of more than a few Dems could have forced the issue), just as she *could* force a vote on a bill to de-fund the war in Iraq. Does anyone with an IQ above room temperature have to guess why neither happened?
Alternatively, the Most Powerful Woman in American Government *could* have had her committees working on a reasonable bill to allow us to quickly track communications of terrorists and other possible enemies *outside* the US. The reason she didn't do this, as near as I can tell, is not that political realities dictated otherwise but more that she is just as incompetent as Dingy Harry Reid.
The Dems wanted her and they got her. Best of luck with that.
By antithaca, at
Sun Aug 19, 01:29:00 PM:
More to the point (than how Pelosi voted)...Congressional leadership was aware of the problem for months and did little. There was little effort to organizw a bill in terms of an honest alternative to the proposal that was passed. What was put forth instead was nothing more than a devious smear of Admiral Mcconnell and a final "throwing up of the hands" on the part of Congressional "leadership".
The Times article is just Monday morning spin...extolling partisans to act to correct the huge mistake when congress returns. It merely recants Democratic Congressional concerns and comments from staff aides and statements from "legal experts". Fine, we all know they had concerns but, YET AGAIN, they presented no viable alternative.
By Cincinnatus, at
Sun Aug 19, 01:56:00 PM:
This actually works to Pelosi's advantage.
By Ray, at
Sun Aug 19, 02:26:00 PM:
Does anybody really believe they're going to spend those 6 months coming up with a better law?
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Aug 19, 02:26:00 PM:
Two pages of hand wringing, and not once does the NYT actually specify precisely what the language of the definitional change is in the bill.
I'm really getting sick and tired of news organizations not telling me precisely what the language in question is.
Most bills come with a definition section at the bottom when they use non-standard definitions of common words. Why not print that verbatim and let people draw their own conclusions?
By 
, at
Sun Aug 19, 03:22:00 PM:
Has Pelosi sent the bill to the White House yet? Maybe she'll catch it when she does her line by line reading beforehand.
By joated, at
Sun Aug 19, 03:32:00 PM:
Hey, Dusty, read the article; "...two weeks after it was signed into law, there is still heated debate over how much power Congress gave to the president."
They passed it and sent it to the White House where President Bush signed it. No do overs for six months.
By A Jacksonian, at
Sun Aug 19, 03:40:00 PM:
So which is more competent: a parliament that takes its time to make good law on difficult topics, like the one in Iraq, or the Congress rushing around at the last second not even bothering to read about what a law actually says?
I will take the slow and sure folks... it may take a bit more to get there, but at least they have time to think about what they are doing... unlike those folks Upon the Hill.
By , at
Sun Aug 19, 04:24:00 PM:
They didn't have time to consider this before the end of session. They had other, more pressing things to do. There was the "slow bleed", defunding, and other, non-binding, resolutions to pass. And don't forget the all-nighter they organized. Most of them didn't attend the all-nighter, but they still had to come up with the concept - which as we all know is the really hard part.
You guys just expect too much.
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Aug 20, 12:27:00 AM:
Let me float a theory then. Pelosi knows that a bill allowing foreign surveillance needs to pass, or any screwups in capturing terrorists will be placed firmly at her feet. But a good, well-written bill will put her and the rest of the Dems in hock with the Leftists (and San Francisco has some real doozies). So she pushed a screwed up bill out so that at least she can claim the Dems "Did something", voted against it so her base will still support her, set it to expire in the middle of the Presidential Primary season to use as a political contribution tool, and will spend the next six months raising money from her Leftist friends in order to "fix" the bill.
Sound about right? I didn't used to be this cynical, until I started tracking politics.
