ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Novak: Hastert to retire before end of term.

Last week, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) announced that he will not seek re-election in 2008. In his e-mail newsletter today, Robert Novak reported that Hastert won’t be finishing out his term and will retire on Nov. 6:

hastertcolo2.jpg An Illinois Republican source tells us former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) plans to resign November 6 this year instead of finishing out his term. This would create a vacancy and trigger a special election in the 14th District.

Under Illinois statute, the governor, Rod Blagojevich (D), would get to pick the date of both of the special general election and the special primary election (with separate ballots for each party). The general election would have to be within 120 days of the vacancy (meaning by early March, if the November 6 resignation date holds). February 5 is the date for Illinois’s presidential and congressional primaries, and slating the special election — either the primaries or the general — on that date would save state money.

Security

DNI McConnell: ‘Americans Are Going To Die’ If We Keep Talking About Wiretapping

mcconnell1222.jpgEarlier this month, Congress caved to President Bush and passed legislation updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, vastly expanding Bush’s powers to wiretap American citizens without court oversight. In an extensive interview with the El Paso Times, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell decried continued public discussion of the wiretapping program, claiming Americans, particularly in Iraq, would “die” because of the debate.

Q: So you’re saying that the reporting and the debate in Congress means that some Americans are going to die?

McCONNELL: That’s what I mean. Because we have made it so public. We used to do these things very differently

Despite forewarning of the death of Americans, McConnell freely “pulled the curtain back” on previously declassified information about surveillance in the interview. Explaining details ranging from secret court rulings to information on obtaining wiretapping warrants, McConnell “raised eyebrows” for his “frank discussion of previously classified eavesdropping work” conducted under FISA.

Some highlights of McConnell’s revelations:

Court ruling declared Bush’s program illegal on May 31: “After the 31st of May we were in extremis because now we have significantly less capability” when a federal court ruled part of the wiretapping program illegal, McConnell said.

Private sector actively involved in wiretapping program: “Under the president’s program, the terrorist surveillance program, the private sector had assisted us,” said McConnell. “Now if you play out the suits at the value they’re claimed, it would bankrupt these companies,” McConnell said, arguing for legal immunity for the companies when Congress returns from recess.

McConnell denies White House involvement: “The president’s guidance to me early in the process, was, ‘You’ve got the experience. I trust your judgement. You make the right call. There’s no pressure from anybody here,” McConnell claimed.

Thousands overseas are being monitored via warrants. “Offering never-disclosed figures, McConnell also revealed that fewer than 100 people inside the United States are monitored under FISA warrants. However, he said, thousands of people overseas are monitored,” states the AP.

Takes 200 hours to assemble a wiretapping warrant:
McConnell alleged that “the issue is volume and time” as to why he was so adamant about pursuing warrantless wiretapping. “My argument was that the intelligence community should not be restricted. … It takes about 200 man hours to do one telephone number.”

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) said he believes McConnell declassified the information in this interview because he “wanted to push back on accusations that the legislation gave the attorney general unprecedented new powers.” “I think they felt they had to become more public,” said Hoekstra.

The Bush administration seems to believe it is permissible to talk about illegal wiretapping to save face, but not okay for Americans to question them about it.

Read the full interview HERE. TPM Muckraker has more.

Politics

Bush’s tragic literary allusion.

In his speech today, President Bush cited “Graham Greene’s classic Vietnam novel ‘The Quiet American’ which is essentially a contemplation on the road to hell being paved with good intentions.” The Swamp writes: “By reminding people of Greene’s book, Bush was inviting listeners to recall the mistakes his administration made in entering and prosecuting the Iraq War. Did he really want to do that?”

Yglesias

Vital Interests

I don’t mean to lodge this as a specific complaint about John Edwards, but I was just having a conversation with Spencer in which he said people shouldn’t be allowed to use the phrase “vital interests” in Foreign Affairs essays without giving some kind of which interests they see as the vital ones and, ideally, why they’re so vital. Then he walked out the door and I read Ari Melber’s blog post about John Edwards’ Foreign Affairs essay and it contains, at a key juncture, the phrase in question:

There is no question that we must confront terrorist groups such as al Qaeda with the full force of our military might. As commander in chief, I will never hesitate to apply the full extent of our security apparatus to protect our vital interests, take measures to root out terrorist cells, and strike swiftly and forcefully against those who seek to harm us.

The essay is almost 6,000 words long, but Edwards doesn’t name any vital interests. In his defense, Barack Obama’s manifesto also says that “We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests” but doesn’t say anything about which interests are the vital ones.

And yet, this seems like an important question! Without answering it, these formulae take on a pretty tautological quality. The question isn’t would you use force when you thought it was vital to do so, the question is when is it vital to use force? I think this now-meaningless phrase acquired its talismanic powers back during the Cold War when “protecting our vital interests” in some country or region was a thinly veiled euphemism for “not letting Communists take over.” That doesn’t mean that every statement made about “vital interests” was correct or reasonable, or that preventing a pro-Soviet regime in Angola really was a vital interest, but one at least knew what one meant.

By contrast, when Edwards or Obama talks about vital interests I actually have no idea what they’re talking about. You have a very wide range of substantive disagreement as to what our interests are (and, of course, which of our interests are the vital ones) as well as how best to advance them, and I also here people trying to stretch the notion of an “interest” to encompass other kinds of policy priorities like genocide prevention. An essay on the subject of “what I think America’s vital interests are” (heck, even a numbered list) would tell us a lot more about where these candidates are coming from than do these essays.

Politics

Fleischer Ignorant Of The Name Of Wounded Iraq Vet Featured In His TV Ad

On MSNBC’s Hardball tonight, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who is leading a White House front group to defend Bush’s escalation, was unable to name the wounded Iraq veteran featured in his organization’s pro-war ad. “I don’t have his name in front of me,” said Fleischer when asked by host Mike Barnicle if he knew the soldier’s name.

Later in the program, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America executive director Paul Rieckhoff ripped into Fleischer’s offensive ignorance. “What bothered me the most is that Ari Fleischer didn’t even know the guy’s name.” said Rieckhoff. “He’s willing to run a multi-million dollar campaign, utilizing the personal story of a soldier, and he couldn’t tell you on national TV what that soldier’s name is.”

Rieckhoff described it as part of “a problematic trend” that Freedom’s Watch is using the soldier’s “personal story” as “a backdrop for political rhetoric”:

People on both sides of the aisle, but especially the president and this administration, have continued to use troops as a political prop. As a backdrop for political rhetoric. It’s why the president gave such an impassionate speech today in front of the VFW. It’s why this ad carries so much weight on a visceral level. And it really bothers me because our troops are not political props and they’re not chew toys.

Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/08/FleischerCantName.320.240.flv]

Fleischer and his team of Bush surrogates are spending $15 million to run the ad featuring the soldier, whose name is John Kriesel, in 20 states for a month. Hopefully, Fleischer will remember his name from now on.

Digg It!

Politics

After Only 10 Hours In Iraq, Sens. Corker And Alexander See ‘Clear Success’

corkeralexander.jpgReturning from a trip to Iraq, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Bob Corker (R-TN) “gave an upbeat report on progress in Iraq” to reporters this morning, saying they saw “clear success, province by province“:

Alexander said a strategy devised by Petraeus to work with local leaders and win them over to the U.S. cause has shown “clear success, province by province.”

“They are fed up with random murders of their children” by al-Qaida terrorists, he said.

“There are probably seven provinces where enough progress has been made to involve Iraqis in their own security,” claimed Alexander during the call with reporters.

Unmentioned in press accounts of Alexander and Corker’s trip, however, is the fact that they only spent half a day on the ground in Iraq.

Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), who organized the trip (which also included Sen. David Vitter), told reporters that only 10-14 hours out of their four-day trip was spent in Iraq. Voinovich’s communications director, Chris Paulitz, confirmed the duration of the delegation’s trip to ThinkProgress.

Despite the superficial, in and out nature of their trip, Corker and Alexander are pronouncing “significant progress” on the ground in Iraq. As former Washington Post Baghdad correspondent Jonathan Finer wrote this weekend, “there is good reason to be skeptical of such snapshot accounts“:

It goes without saying that everyone can, and in this country should, have an opinion about the war, no matter how much time the person has spent in Iraq, if any. But having left a year ago, I’ve stopped pretending to those who ask that I have a keen sense of what it’s like on the ground today. Similarly, those who pass quickly through the war zone should stop ascribing their epiphanies to what are largely ceremonial visits.

While politicians who spend a few hours in the “dog-and-pony show are claiming “significant progress,” soldiers who have been on the ground for 15 months are seeing a very different picture: “mounting civil, political and social unrest.”

Politics

Historian: Bush’s ‘distortion’ of Vietnam ‘boggles my mind.’

In his speech to Veterans of Foreign Wars today, President Bush declared that the lesson of Vietnam is that we must not withdraw from Iraq. UCLA historian Robert Dallek, who has written about the comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam, says Bush is “twisting history” with his new analogy:

“It just boggles my mind, the distortions I feel are perpetrated here by the president,” he said in a telephone interview.

“We were in Vietnam for 10 years. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we did in all of World War II in every theater. We lost 58,700 American lives, the second-greatest loss of lives in a foreign conflict. And we couldn’t work our will,” he said.

“What is Bush suggesting? That we didn’t fight hard enough, stay long enough? That’s nonsense. It’s a distortion,” he continued. “We’ve been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. It’s a disaster, and this is a political attempt to lay the blame for the disaster on his opponents. But the disaster is the consequence of going in, not getting out.”

(HT: Karen Tumulty)

Climate Progress

Global Warming and Hurricane Preparedness

katrina.jpg The Center for American Progress is having a panel Monday at 1 pm at its DC headquarters in conjunction with the release of the report, Forecast: Storm Warnings.

Featured Panelists:
Dr. Peter Webster, Professor in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech
Mayor Richard T. Crotty
(R), Orange County, Florida
John B. Copenhaver, President and CEO, DRI International
Jane Bullock, Former Chief of Staff, FEMA Director James Lee Witt

Come if you can: I’ve heard Webster a number of times, and he’s a great speaker — plus he is sure to talk about his important new paper, “Heightened tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic: natural variability or climate trend?

I’ll post the report and the video when they’re available.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up