It’s About Protecting Lawbreakers, Not Americans

I want to spotlight these two paragraphs toward the end of a guest-authored post at Think Progress:

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.

White House’s “Myths and Facts” About PAA Are More Like Facts and Myths

Here is a sample, cited by Steve Benen:

MYTH: If any new surveillance needs to begin, the FISA court can approve a request within minutes. In the case of an emergency, surveillance can begin immediately and FISA approval can be obtained later.

FACT: Reverting to the outdated FISA statute risks our national security. FISA’s outdated provisions created dangerous intelligence gaps, which is why Congress passed the Protect America Act in the first place.

Um, guys? In this case, the “fact” does not disprove the “myth.” In fact, it’s a non sequitur. The White House presented a “myth,” apparently in the hopes of disproving it, and then didn’t point to any evidence that actually undermined the veracity of the original claim, which, inconveniently, happens to be accurate.

As Brian Beutler explained, “If the claim in the myth is, in fact, inaccurate, then the fact should read: ‘The FISA court can not approve a request within minutes, and emergency surveillance cannot begin immediately.’ Or something. But, of course, the ‘myth’ is true, and, as you can see, the ‘fact’ is a rather large heap of irrelevant bullshit.”

I always thought the point of a “Myth vs. Fact” sheet was to disprove claims that aren’t true. Then again, what do I know — I also always thought the point of an executive branch was to faithfully enforce the law, too.

Libby Spencer thinks Steve is making way too much work for himself: “… I’ve struck on an easier method to decipher the piece. I think it’s just a typo problem. If you substitute the word FACT for MYTH and substitute the word LIE for FACT, it makes perfect sense.”

Sometimes the White House doesn’t even get the “myth” right; i.e., their characterization of the “objection” they are attempting to refute is not accurate — as here:

MYTH: The future security of our country does not depend on whether Congress provides liability protection for companies being sued for billions of dollars only because they are believed to have assisted the Government in defending America after the 9/11 attacks.

FACT: Without the retroactive liability protection provided in the bipartisan Senate bill, we may not be able to secure the private sector’s cooperation with current and future intelligence efforts critical to our national security.

McJoan’s retort is absolutely true:

I know the whole “law” thing has bypassed the administration for so long that they probably don’t really even remember it’s there, but anyway, there are actually things called “court orders” that can compel entities, even private ones, to do things that the government needs them to do. And there’s this great bonus for the companies built in that we can call “liability protection.” See, if they do it “legally,” with a “court order,” they’re protected from suits. Wow, what a system!

Except that the entire point is that court orders will be denied (at least, in theory — I know the law does not apply to this administration) if what the government is asking the telecoms to do is, or was, illegal. It’s precisely because the White House knows that the warrantless surveillance done after 9/11 with the assistance of the telecoms was illegal under FISA that it wants to indemnify the telecoms from any legal consequences. It’s not because Bush really believes that we are all as good as dead if the telecoms don’t provide unlimited access to government wiretappers; it’s not because he, or anyone else, really believes that the government cannot obtain the telecoms’ compliance without retroactive immunity. The White House set up this particular “myth” the way it did precisely so that it could avoid the legal issues.

Fuck Kudlow

I am PISSED, royally, I have never used that word on-line. I always figured that I had a better command of the English language that I did not have to use crude 4-letter words.

But not only is Kudlow as full of shit as a Christmas goose, and I have a good friend that lost her job yesterday, but Bloombergs confirms here that consumer confidence is going down the porcelain receptacle.

Recession may be too restrictive a word. But when the consumer is so far in debt that they must choose between making the credit card payments or buying food and paying rent, the economy has some serious underlying problems.

As far as I am concerned, neither Kudlow nor Bush nor anyone else in that income bracket give a shit about you, me or anyone reading this.

UPDATE: From the New York Times, the economic news goes from bad to horrible. These two grafs grabbed me

Meanwhile, a closely watched measure of consumer confidence, the Reuters/University of Michigan survey, fell to 69.6 in February, the lowest reading since February 1992. It had stood at 78.4 in January.

Consumers are likely cowed by a softening labor market — the Labor Department said employers cut 17,000 jobs last month — and rising inflation, which is forcing Americans to cut back on spending.

Some folks, in the face of overwhelming evidence, cannot admit they are wrong. Kudlow, Kramer, Paulson, Bernanke and hundreds more will never admit they’ve made a mistake.