[NYTr] Dems Signal New Cave-In on Spying

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Consortium News - Oct 9, 2007
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/100907.html

Democrats Signal New Spying Cave-in

By Robert Parry

An intriguing part of the Washington political dynamic is that the more
the Democrats think they might win an upcoming election, the more timid
they become – fearful that they will give the powerful right-wing media
machine some issue that will destroy their victory dreams.

What often happens, however, is that once the Democrats slip into their
four-corner stall offense, their lack of a clear purpose – or
discernable principle – can become the lethal political issue that they
so desperately wanted to avoid. John Kerry’s “flip-flopping” or Hillary
Clinton’s “triangulations” can prove just as deadly as a controversial
stand.

The Democrats appear to be sliding into just such a calculation as they
signal a new willingness – especially in the Senate – to give George W.
Bush pretty much whatever he wants on a new spying bill and to push for
a more belligerent approach toward Iran.

As the New York Times reported on Oct. 9,  “two months after insisting
they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush
administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions
that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security
Agency.

“Administration officials say they are confident they will win approval
of the broadened authority that they secured temporarily in August as
Congress rushed toward recess. Some Democratic officials concede that
they may not come up with enough votes to stop approval.” [NYT, Oct. 9,
2007]

Indeed, congressional Democrats may end up granting the administration
even more power than they did when they crumbled under political
pressure in August and rushed through the loosely worded “Protect
America Act of 2007.”

Along with granting President Bush broad new surveillance powers, the
law gave legal immunity to telecommunications companies that assist the
government’s spying in the future. But the administration now is
sensing that it also can secure amnesty for companies that have
collaborated with government eavesdropping orders in the past and are
facing lawsuits from customers complaining that their rights were
violated.

While retreating in the face of fears that they otherwise will be
dubbed "soft on terror," the congressional Democrats have narrowed
their hopes to possibly inserting an increased role for the secret
court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in
overseeing the spying.

Broader Law

Though sold last summer as an important anti-terror law, the “Protect
America Act” doesn’t actually mention the word “terrorism” nor is it
the narrowly constructed revision of the FISA law that it was called in
much of the press coverage in early August.

The supposed fix that the administration said it wanted was to let the
NSA intercept messages from two foreign entities whose communications
went through a U.S. switching station. That could have been easily
corrected with a narrow amendment.

Instead, with the Democrats fretting that the Republicans would bash
them for taking an August recess without first closing this security
gap, the Bush administration rammed through a much broader law.

The “Protect America Act” granted the NSA sweeping powers to spy on
anyone “reasonably believed to be outside the United States” who might
possess “foreign intelligence information,” defined as anything that
could be useful to U.S. foreign policy.

In other words, the Bush administration’s controversial post-9/11
decision to forego court warrants when intercepting electronic
communications when one party is outside the United States and the
other is inside was effectively legalized retroactively.

The law’s language didn’t even require that the person outside the
United States have any alleged connection to terrorism or that the
person be a foreigner. All that was required was a sign-off by the
Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence, two Bush
political appointees.

When the scope of the Democratic cave-in became apparent to Americans
concerned about constitutional protections, a furor erupted. House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office reported receiving more than 200,000
angry e-mails.

Stung by the reaction, Democratic leaders promised that the spying law
would be revisited once Congress returned from its summer recess,
rather than waiting around for a required reauthorization of the law in
February 2008. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “New Spy Law Broader Than
Thought.”]

Second Roll-Over

However, it now appears that congressional Democrats are setting the
stage for a second capitulation out of fear that the Republicans would
paint any rollback in the spying law as “soft on terror” and that the
right-wing media would smear Democrats with a broad brush in Campaign
2008.

The national Democrats worry that the “soft on terror” charge could
jeopardize their prospects for holding – and possibly expanding – their
congressional majorities and for reclaiming the White House under their
expected nominee, Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Given the unpopularity of President Bush and the disarray within the
Republican Party, the Democratic leaders see a golden opportunity in
Election 2008. So, they don’t want to take what they regard as undue
political risks.

This “play-it-safe” pattern fits with Democratic behavior in 2002 when
the strategy was to give President Bush his Iraq War authorization –
thus blunting the “softness” charge – and then hope to prevail in the
election based on domestic issues.

Despite the Democratic cave-in on Iraq, Bush’s right-wing allies still
bashed the Democrats as weak on national security – even likening
triple-amputee Vietnam veteran and Georgia Sen. Max Cleland to Osama
bin Laden. The Republicans rolled up majorities in both the House and
Senate.

In Campaign 2004, the Democrats turned to Sen. John Kerry of
Massachusetts, a Vietnam War hero who was considered somewhat safe
because he had voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq. The
Republicans, however, didn’t miss a beat, questioning Kerry’s Vietnam
War heroism and dismissing him as a weak-kneed flip-flopper on Iraq.

Campaign 2006 was a divergence from the Democratic pattern, with the
party’s congressional candidates taking a tougher stance against Bush
and bashing the Republican majorities in Congress as the President’s
rubber stamp. The result was a surprising Democratic victory in both
the House and Senate.

Since then, however, as Democratic prospects brightened for further
gains in 2008, the leadership has chosen to play it safe, avoiding a
serious showdown with Bush over Iraq War funding and rejecting
rank-and-file demands for impeachment hearings.

Now, as Hillary Clinton consolidates her lead in the 2008 Democratic
presidential race, she appears to be eyeing a similar strategy,
shifting back toward the “tough-guy/gal” positions that she adopted in
supporting the Iraq War from 2002 to 2005.

She joined other senior Democrats in backing a resolution co-authored
by neoconservative Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut calling on
Bush to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a “terrorist
organization,” a move that Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, warned could be a
prelude to a wider Mid-east war. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Hillary
Prods Bush to Go After Iran.”]

The Democrats may think that by giving Bush new spying powers they also
can finesse the “soft on terror” charge in 2008. More likely, however,
a new cave-in will simply demoralize the Democratic base and make the
Democratic candidates look weak and indecisive to voters who are
concerned about the nation projecting a strong image in a dangerous
world.

One way to address this recurring political dynamic would be for
American progressives to invest much more heavily in their own media
infrastructure, so it can begin to match up with the juggernaut that
the Right has built over the past three decades.

But the Left continues to pay insufficient attention to the nation’s
media imbalance, apparently hoping against hope that the mainstream
corporate media will rediscover its journalistic principles and start
challenging the Bush administration more forcefully.

In the meantime, even on vital issues of war and constitutional
principles, the national Democrats apparently have concluded that their
best hope is to duck confrontations and do whatever’s necessary to
accommodate aggressive Republicans and their right-wing media allies.

[Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the
Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The
Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his
sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com.]