Skip to comments.LIVE THREAD!(THE HUGH HEWITT SHOW: 3PM-6PM PST) Tuesday NOVEMBER 15, 2005: Listen via web or radio!
Posted on 11/15/2005 3:07:35 PM PST by MNJohnnie
The Hugh Hewitt Show is heard on 112 radio stations nationwide. You may obtain information about affiliates by e-mailing: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Location Call Letters Frequency Show Times Ashburn, GA WTIF 107.5 6-9 PM Sat., Sun Atlanta, GA WLTA 1400 AM 10-12 PM WNIV 970 AM 10-12 PM WGKA 1190 AM 6-9 PM - "Best of" 7-10 Sat.
Bakersfield, CA KNZR 1560 AM 7-10 PM Baltimore, MD WITH 1230 AM 6-9 PM Bartlesville, OK KWON 1400 AM 7 PM Black Mountain, NC WFGW 1010 AM 6-9 PM Boone, IA KFFF 1260 AM 99.3 FM 5-8 PM Boston, MA WTTT 1150 AM 6-9 PM Carson City, NV KPTL 1300 AM 3-5 PM Charlotte, NC WZRH 960 AM 9-12 PM Chicago, IL WIND 560 AM 8-11 PM Chippewa Falls, WI WOGO 680 AM 6-8 PM Cincinnati, OH WBOB 1160 AM 6-9 PM Cleveland, OH WHK 1220 AM 5-7 PM Colorado Springs, CO KZNT 1460 AM 4-7 PM Copperville River Valley, AK KCAM 790 AM 2-4 PM Dallas, TX KSKY 660 AM 8-11 PM; 11 PM-2 AM, Sat.
Denver, CO KNUS 710 AM 4-7 PM Detroit, MI WDTK 1400 AM 12-3 AM Duluth, MN WDSM 710 AM 5-7 PM (Sat., Sun.) Eau Claire, WI WOGO 680 AM 6-8 PM Eddington, ME WWNZ 1400 AM 6-9 PM (Sun.) Ft. Collins, CO KCOL 600 AM 4-7 PM (Mon-Sat.)
Farmington, NM KENN 1390 AM 4-7 (Sun.) Fresno, CA KMJ 580 AM M-F 9-10 PM 1-4 PM (Sat., Sun.)
Glennallen, AK KCAM 790 AM 2-4 PM Greenville-Spartanburg, SC WSPA 910 AM 6-9 PM Honolulu, HI KHNR 97.5 FM 12-3 PM Houston, TX KNTH 1070 M-F 5-8 PM 5-8 PM(Sat.) 8-11AM (Sun.)
International Falls, MN KADU 90.1 FM 7-10 PM KBHW 99.5 FM 7-10 M-F; 8-11 PM Saturday Jacksonville, FL WJGR 1320 AM 6-9 PM Keizer, OR KYKN 1430 AM 6-9 PM Knoxville, TN WETR 760 AM 6-9 PM Lancaster, OH WLOH 1320 am 9-12 PM Las Vegas, NV KDOX 1280 AM 3-6 PM - coming soon
Lincoln, NE KLIN 1400 AM 12-2 AM Los Angeles, CA KRLA 870 AM 3-6 PM Loveland, CO KSXT 1570 AM 7-10 PM Louisville, KY WGTK 970 AM 6-9 PM Macon, GA WQSA 99.9 FM 9AM - Noon (Sun.) Mason City, IA KILR 1170 AM 8-11 AM (Sat.) Miami WKAT 1360 AM 9-12 PM Milwaukee, WI WRRD 540 AM 11 PM and 1 AM Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN KYCR 1570 AM 5-8 PM; 8-11 AM (Sun.) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN WWTC 1280 AM 5-8 PM Omaha, NE KHLP 1420 AM 5-8 PM Owensboro, KY WOMI 1490 AM 7-9 PM Palo Alto, CA KNTS 1220 3-6 AM Panama City, FL WLTG 1430 AM 9-11 PM Philadelphia, PA WNTP 990 AM 6-7 PM; 10-Midnight Phoenix, AZ KKNT 960 AM 3-4; 7-9 PM Pittsburgh, PA WPIT 730 AM 9-12 PM Portland, OR KAST 1370 AM 3-6 PM Sun. Portland, OR KPDQ 800 AM 3-6 PM Riverside-San Bernardino, CA KRLH 590 AM 3-5 PM Rochester, NY WBTA 1490 AM 9-Midnight Sacramento, CA KTKZ 1380 AM 105.5 FM
3-6 PM Salt Lake-Ogden, UT KLO 1430 AM 4-7 PM San Antonio, TX KLUP 930 AM 8-10 PM San Diego, CA KCBQ 1170 AM 3-6 PM San Francisco, CA KNTS 1220 AM 3-6 PM (5-8 PM Sat, Sun) (3-6 AM Sat) Seattle, WA KIKN 1290 AM 3-6 PM KKOL 1300 AM 3-6 PM Sedalia, MO KSIS 1050 AM 8-11 PM (M-F); 5-8 pm (Sun.) South Bend, IN WFRN 1270 AM 6-9 PM Spokane, WA KTRW 970 AM 5 PM Springfield, MO KSGF 1260 AM 3-6 AM Tampa-St. Petersburgh Clearwater, FL WTBN 570 AM 9 PM WTWD 910 AM 9 PM Tucson, AZ KVOI 690 AM 4-7 PM Vicksburg, MS WQBC 1420 AM 8-11 PM Walla Walla, WA KGDC 1320 AM 4-6 PM Watertown, SD KSDR 1480 AM 9 PM-Midnight Yakima, WA KGDC 1320 AM 7-10 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOPICS: Politics/Elections; War on Terror; Your Opinion/Questions; Click to Add Topic KEYWORDS: 109TH; ALIENS; ALITO; AUSTRALIA; AVIANBIRDFLU; AVIANFLU; BIRDFLU; BLOG; CALIFORNIA; CHEESEEATING; CHINA; CIALEAK; CONGRESSMANDREIER; CULTURE; DAVIDDREIER; DREIER; DUANE; ELECTION; ELECTIONDAY; ELECTIONRESULTS; FRANCE; FREEREPUBLICBOOSTER; FREEREPUBLICFAVORITE; FRENCHMUSLIMS; GENERALISSMO; GENERALISSMODUANE; GWOT; HEWITT; HISTORY; HUGH; HUGHHEWITT; IFITSNOTCLOSE; INSURGENCY; INTELIGENTTALK; INTIFADA; IRAQ; ISLAM; ISPARISBURNING; ISRAEL; JERRYKILGORE; JIHAD; JORDAN; KRLA; LIVE; LIVETHREAD; MARINESMILITARY; MUSLIM; MUSLIMS; OIF; PARIS; PARISRIOTS; QUAGMIRE; RADIO; RADIOBLOGGER; REASON; RIOTS; ROGERLSIMON; ROGERSIMON; RSIMON; SIMON; SNORE; SURRENDERMONKEYS; SWEETREASON; TALK; TALKRADIO; TERRORISM; TERRORISTS; THEHUGHHEWITTSHOW; THEREALDEAL; THESMARTGUYS; THEYCANTCHEAT; TROP; TSHIRT; UPRISING; VDH; VETERANS; VETERANSDAY; VICTORDAVISHANSEN; VOICEOFREASON; WARONTERROR; WOT; YONI; YONI4KENNESSET; YONIFORKNESSET; YOUTHS; Click to Add Keyword
Hey Over here, it is really good.
I love Hugh Hewitt (most of the time)....but, alas, won't get his show for 3 hours...gack...but, I will be glad to follow along a thread...
Especially since Mark Levin isn't on tonight.
What the hell happened today....I've been out house hunting.
Yeah the last hour or so bores me but this Sen Burr is GREAT
THANKS FOR THE PING!
I guess I missed the good stuff alreadY!
steak and tators are good though..
I'm here, because Mark Levin has a substitute.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM GOOD!Might have to bail and go out to eat!
Senator DeMint will be on at 40 after the hour.
As long as your steak is Medium Rare.... we will forgive you...
Yep, the subs just do not cut it. Sorry guys. Sure you are very nice people but there is a reason the "Great ones" are know that way
Subs are like ordering a steak and getting a taco...
I like tacos- but sure ticks me off when I get a taco when I wanted a steak..
Hewitt is somewhat wrong. The democrats had an amendment that meant that, the republican's amendment doesn't really change anything.
The democrats will always try to claim victory. Last year they claimed a loss was a victory. Last tuesday they claimed that the status quo was a victory.
Now the rejection of their amendment is a victory.
The amendment Warner put in was actually a pretty good amendment. Not great, but asking for reports is a fine thing.
The best part to me of this is that the part that is the "sense of the senate" basically says the Senate wants the administration to DO what the administration is DOING. In other words, the republicans just got most of the democrats to endorse the Administration plan.
Some people can't take half-wins from the jaws of defeat, they want slap-downs.
Instead, we can spin this as a slap-down.
I wonder if Hewitt even READ the amendment?
BTW, Rumsfeld was asked about this amendment today, and he said he was fine with it, that it was what they were already doing, and that he was happy that the Senate actually took an interest in reports -- and then said he hoped they would READ the reports.
90-day reporting gives the Administration a scheduled time every 3 months to re-make their case, and the democrats can't complain about it because they signed on to it.
Just called my Senator's office and told him to take me off his donor list.
I am calling my guys tomorrow to THANK them for their wits....
I admit Isakson, to me, is no thrill... he's not conservative enough for me.. but at least he kept his mind today...
Chambliss is pretty good though.. much better than johnny isakson...
Spin as hard as you want it is a total PR and Propaganda defeat. It emboldens our foes and disheartens our freinds. It was a completely stupid move that should of been spiked by the Leadership. A Dem run Senate would of never even let this on the floor. Tom Delay would of killed this in a heart beat. Senate Repbulicans seem unable to realize THEY are in charge, not the Dems.
keep preachin' bro...
No that is not me, but I wish it was!
stinks when the broccoli is soggy too.....
so is everyone sleeping?
Send them mail and tell them
"DON'T EVEN TRY AND SPIN THIS! I KNOW BETTER!! IF YOU CAN'T REPRESENT ME- YOU DON'T GET MY VOTE! OR $$$$ PERIOD!"
Yeah everyone must got out to eat or go home from work. Gets real quite
I just ate, tummy full... just chillin' out... nice...
From Monday Senate:
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, our magnificent service men and women, along with allies and partners, are supporting the Iraqis as they develop their own concepts of democracy. Jointly we are improving infrastructure, improving the internal security, and together confronting the extremists.
By any fair objective political measure, the people of Iraq are making progress. In 1 year, the Iraqis elected a transitional government, ratified a constitution, and are preparing to elect a permanent parliamentary government on December 15th.
During many hearings and briefings, the senior military commanders, particularly General Abizaid has stressed that the extremist militant jihadists are focusing on dominating a geographic area that extends from Spain to Indonesia. The tragic events in Jordan underscore the accuracy of that military analysis.
The al-Qaida group in Iraq claimed responsibility for the tragic attacks in Jordan against innocent Arab civilians. While portions of Iraq remain focal points for terrorist attacks, the threat extends far beyond.
This enemy seeks neither compromise nor coexistence with the United States or others who do not share their world vision. The United States, along with partners and allies, must continue their strong resolve and effectively address this threat. The civilized world has no choice.
Of equal importance to the military mission in Iraq is the development of political structures and reconstruction of the infrastructure. I, like many of you, have made a number of trips to Iraq: I have seen progress.
Now I would like to specifically address the pending amendments related to our policy to achieve our military, political, and reconstruction goals in Iraq. While there are similarities, the amendments differ on several major points.
Both amendments recognize the magnificent work being done by our Armed Forces; the unwavering support of their families at home; the importance of political developments to take place in Iraq next year; the necessity to put Iraqi Security Forces in the lead in securing Iraq; and the requirement to keep the American people well informed of all aspects of the military, political, and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
[Page: S12763] GPO's PDF
Both amendments call for the President to submit a quarterly report on our progress in Iraq. While Congress already receives a number of reports and Members and committees in both bodies receive briefings from civilian and military leaders, this report from the President would become the most comprehensive report on the situation in Iraq.
These are the three important differences between the two amendments.
No. 1 the reporting timeline--section c. The Warner-Frist amendment calls for the first report 90 days after the enactment of the Act. Ninety days allows the President sufficient time to assemble this very wide-ranging report. A report of this scope will require close consultation with all departments and agencies of the Federal Government; American diplomats in Iraq and in the region; United States allied and partnered nations; and our military leaders here and in the theater of operations.
The Levin amendment would allow for just 30 days of coordination and consultation before submitting the initial report. I believe that is insufficient time to produce a report as comprehensive as this.
No. 2 is section c. The Levin-Reid amendment calls for a completely unclassified report. The Warner-Frist amendment directs that the report be unclassified to the extent possible. This is an important distinction. Some information on international negotiations and agreements, and plans for Iraq's domestic security will be an integral part of the development of Iraqi security forces, this may be too sensitive to be presented in an unclassified forum. The Warner-Frist amendment allows the President to produce a classified annex if the President and his advisors believe it is necessary.
No. 3 is a campaign plan with estimated dates for phased withdrawal--section c(7). The Levin-Reid amendment asks for a campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces to be published in the unclassified report. I believe that any program for the withdrawal of American combat forces must be conditions-based, and linked to specific, responsible benchmarks not just dates on a calendar, per se. While I agree that we must continue to make it clear to the Iraqis that a program for withdrawal is a common goal, any announcement of immediate withdrawal or even speculation of withdrawal before a secure and democratic Iraq is in place is simply not prudent.
I am concerned that the release of a timeline such as that in the last paragraph of the Levin-Reid amendment now that announces our withdrawal plans, even with estimated dates, could promote speculation and send an erroneous message to our troops, the Iraqi people, our coalition partners, and the terrorists.
I urge you to vote for Warner-Frist amendment and that we follow Levin and Reid, rather than an entire new amendment to show how much we do agree on and that this is an effort to seek partisanship.
We are down to two differences: the word ``indefinite,'' which to me precludes the chance--could be construed as we would not leave a very small unit there to facilitate the logistic transfer, the need to bring up to a level of acceptability the armaments the Iraqis have; and the continuation of some security work as well as training. But I will not belabor the point. I was very specific in the careful choice of words substituted for ``indefinite.''
The last paragraph--every Senator has to decide for himself or herself the clear meaning of the English language and whether that cannot be construed by many to invoke the thought of a timetable.
I say to my good friend, we have had a very good debate tonight. How fortunate we are that our distinguished colleague, a long-time member of the committee, the Senator from Connecticut, joined us.
I think we have done a good service to our colleagues who, in a very brief period tomorrow, will be required to focus on this and cast their votes accordingly.
Don't have the amendment printed. Point out where this comment by Warner undermines the administration or shows a collapse of the resolve in the war on Iraq.
oh--and I bought some mint Christmas M&M's and vanilla ice cream today... great for homemeade breezies.....
Nice and minty.....
You listening to DeMint....the Repubs were trying to our smart the DEMS.....didn't realize how this is playing.
They should have let the Levin amendment go to a vote and defeat it; instead they leave our servicemen and Iraqi people confused. Get rid of Frisk ; he makes me SICK! I would'nt even want him as a Doctor. Please, get rid of him!!! I'd even say "bring back Lott"
It is a PR and Propaganda defeat. What it SAYS is completely irrelevant. OK? What it DOES is irrelevant. Politics is largely a matter of perceptions. This aids Bush's foes. It gives the Terrorists hope. This vote KILLS American Soldiers. The switch to bombing in Jordan was a sign of a shifting move by the Islamic Terrorists that they were moving OUT of Iraq. This tells them to STAY and fight. If you read everything the terrorist have written, they look to Vietnam and are convinced American will eventually run away. This is a MAJOR signal that we are about to CUT and RUN. Doesn't matter what it SAYS, it matters how it is REPORTED. It was a completely stupid move by people who SHOULD know better. It is a clear indication the Republican Senate simply cannot be run by Frist. He is probably a really nice guy, he is NOT a leader.
I'm with ya!
This is just ridiculous...
They are either ABSOLUTE IDIOTS.. or think WE ARE!
I think I am getting sick and tired of the "white-hot-rage" crowd.
Some people would cut of their feet if they thought DailyKOS said the feet were victories for the left.
It was a meaningless amendment, endorsing the admininstration plans. The republican version does NOTHING to suggest we would pull out too soon, it simply states what the administration has already claimed as a goal, that we will step down when Iraq can step up.
A good-government conservative would have voted against this because it was unnecessary, but it isn't the end of the world, except for those who like to look for the end of the world.
Didn't Hewitt already commit an unpardonable sin by jumping on the Miers bandwagon? Or can you "undrink" the kool-aid by overreacting to some other percieved slight.
Does nobody realise that the democrat's new strategy is to claim everything as victory in the hopes that the rabid right will panic and be against stuff? The left wants to run the senate and house, and will vote for "conservative" democrats if that's what it takes. Meanwhile, the rabid right seems to think that the population of Freeperville is sufficient to win the next set of elections.
Well, come to Virginia. You need a majority to win elections. You sometimes have to give up the street to win the city. Blindly charging ahead just to get "victories" leads to walking into ambushes and losing the war.
Although many of the rabid right would LIKE to lose the war, because they think it was TRIVIAL to get to the 55 senate seats we have today. No sense of history, they have.
OK, that was quite a silly rant. I'm trying to fight the real fight, and it is demoralizing having people like Hewitt running around like chicken little over an amendment that does nothing but ask for a new report. If the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE is OK with the amendment, I don't see why we should hang our senators over it.
Sure, let's throw Allen out. He's not "pure". Well, nobody is "pure". Not one person here agrees on every last point with every other person here.
Now I remember why I don't listen to Hugh Hewitt. Even when he was with the "pro-miers" crowd he was annoying.
ANd they are resounding your point EXACTLY right now...
Where oh where can we find SPINES for the Pub Senators. I'm so ashamed of them.
Never, ever, send any money to the NSC. Pick a worthy Senator like Coburn, Burr....and let them know why THEY are getting your money.
No it is silly to keep lying to oneself rather then admit the truth. Charles when 100% of the bloggers on our side tells you this is a REALLY bad idea, and ALL your foes tell you it is a GREAT thing for them, don't you think MAYBE they have a point?
Charles, it aids fund raising and propaganda efforts of the Left. That right there is a defeat. What the REALITY of the bill says is irrelevent. What would of happened if the Repbs just KILLED this as they should have?
Sure, Hugh, veto the DEFENSE bill because the senate asked for quarterly reports, and expressed the view that as Iraq can defend itself, we should back off.
If we are going to veto this bill, it should be because of the REAL disaster, the "anti-torture" amendments.
You know, in this debate over this amendment, we got a Democrat Senator, Senator Lieberman, to make a SPEECH on the floor where he said that he supported the war, that he was proud of his vote, that the attacks on the Bush administration about misleading were a bunch of crock.
He said that the Democrat's amendment hurt our troops, emboldened our enemy, and confused our allies.
Every one of us can take Lieberman's quotes and use them for the next month to repudiate the democrat's proposals for the war, and show them for the political small-minded politicians they are.
But instead, the rabid right wants to take the 50 caliber guns and aim them at our own troops, calling this a horrible capitulation.
Fight the war, not the battle.
The other thing, as listening to the top of the hour news right now. The Dems are reporting this as forcing the White House to report to them. The fact that THE WH ALL READY DOES THIS is NOT being reported.
everything you say would make sense if the MAJORITY OF AMERICA GOT THE FACTS!
Sad point is... MOST of AMERICA doesn't pay attention....they hear bits, not even the facts- just "moods" and "feelings"
THis is another step in the direction of the Lib ultimate goal...... Vietnam mentality and defeat....
It's not US you need to convince.. is the MAJORITY of AMerica... and you an't reach them....
But guess who can... NYT, CNN, WASH COMPOST, etc...
We cannot have an elected body that takes votes based on their propaganda value. That is what our enemy, the democrats, do.
We need to do what is right, or what at least looks rational, whether the left can claim a victory or not.
Let the administration fight it's battles, and do it's spin. Donald Rumsfeld addressed this today better than I ever could. I just heard the official "news" about this amendment on this station. Nothing about "resounding defeat for the administration", or about "repudiation", or "victory for the anti-war crowd".
No, just that the Senate asked the white house to provide quarterly progress reports and define a success strategy for the war. Sure, they already HAD a success strategy, but it won't hurt the administration to actually let us all know what that is.
We shouldn't pick fights for the sake of propaganda. The democrats are too good at that game -- they will present reasonable amendments, we'll force our side to reject them because of the "propaganda", and in 2006 all the public will see is a republican party that rejects common-sense ideas for partisan political purposes.
The public relations war is not TODAY. It is every day leading up to the next election.
I agree that this was a crappy thing to do while the president was out of town. But rather than get upset at it, simply point out that the democrats forced this when they knew the president wasn't around, because they were afraid to do it while he was here.
There is nothing wrong with spin. It's how you win elections in the real world.
How did the McCain amendment affect previous anti-torture statute and treaty? Torture is illegal under UCMJ, US Statutes, and international anti-torture treaty that SU signed onto in 1994. The country has a policy of not using "cruel and unusual" measures.
So what is the effect of the McCain amendment (S.AMDT.1977, IIRC), besides "present PR"?
Senator Coburn coming up soon. He is the man.
"WHERE WERE YOU?"
Here is what Captain Ed said (is he not with us anymore?):
Senate GOP Plays Smart Tactics, Not Surrender (Updated)
Several CQ readers point out this article in today's New York Times, angry at what appears to be yet another Republican surrender to the Democrats on the national stage. The GOP has introduced a measure that will require the White House to publicly lay out a victory in Iraq and some sort of plan for the phased withdrawal of troops afterwards:
In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war. ...
The proposal on the Iraq war, from Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would require the administration to provide extensive new quarterly reports to Congress on subjects like progress in bringing in other countries to help stabilize Iraq. The other appeals related to Iraq are nonbinding and express the position of the Senate.
The plan stops short of a competing Democratic proposal that moves toward establishing dates for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But it is built upon the Democratic approach and makes it clear that senators of both parties are increasingly eager for Iraqis to take control of their country in coming months and open the door to removing American troops.
The Senate will debate two different bills. This measure comes in response to a Democratic proposal that would set a specific timetable for troop withdrawals, a bad idea that doesn't take into account Iraqi troop strength or on-the-ground status of the insurgency and native forces. Republicans want to stay ahead of the Democrats in war management, and this keeps the GOP in the lead.
It isn't unreasonable to have Congress call for some accounting from the White House on the status of Iraq, given the 150,000 troops currently deployed on a police mission there. It doesn't have to be a net negative for Bush to come to the Senate to present his side of the story; as the events this past week have shown, the President can use that kind of platform to correct many distortions of his record and the state of the effort in Iraq. Given the frustration many in the GOP feel with the White House in communicating all the good that our intervention has created, it sounds like a very good idea indeed, one that might be cast as a long-overdue bullhorn.
The second part of the GOP effort, however, does seem more like surrender:
The Senate is also scheduled to vote Tuesday on a compromise, announced Monday night, that would allow terror detainees some access to federal courts. The Senate had voted last week to prohibit those being held from challenging their detentions in federal court, despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary.
Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is the author of the initial plan, said Monday that he had negotiated a compromise that would allow detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their designation as enemy combatants in federal courts and also allow automatic appeals of any convictions handed down by the military where detainees receive prison terms of 10 years or more or a death sentence.
It depends on the manner of the capture of these detainees as to whether they should have access to federal court and how much jurisdiction those courts should be given. Those captured in open battle against American troops, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, should have none. We do not want to treat battlefield captures as arrests, and have defense attorneys issuing subpoenas to American soldiers for courtroom testimony. Terrorists captured under these circumstances should either be shot on capture -- as provided by the Geneva accords -- or handled strictly within the military.
I can see a point in making a distinction for those caught by the CIA and FBI, however. Those do not qualify as enemy combatants in the manner of the detainees described above, and really fall into the category of espionage/sabotage agents, which traditionally have had their cases heard in civilian courts. If the Lindsay Graham measure allows for strict secrecy on agents and methods, and only allows access to the appellate system for its public review and not fact-finding, then it could be an acceptable compromise.
I would hesitate in reading either as a capitulation in any circumstance. The former looks like an excellent tactical play on behalf of the White House by the Republican caucus, while the latter -- in light of the Supreme Court ruling which it hopes to replace -- may be the best retrieval possible of a bad situation.
UPDATE: CQ readers strongly disagree with me, as does Hugh Hewitt and most of the conservative blogosphere on this point. Well, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again, but bear with me for a moment on this.
I will grant everyone that in this hyperpartisan atmosphere, any attempt to find a middle ground looks like surrender, and very well might be surrender. However, I think when readers check out the entire NYT article, John Warner's assurance that the Republican version of this bill will set no timetables for withdrawal marks an important difference. It respects the executive's prerogrative to run the war, but also preserves the people's prerogative to have the executive report on its progress on a regular basis. In this case, with the Iraqi government talking about the withdrawal of American troops next year, it doesn't sound unreasonable for the White House to consult Congress in such a manner.
Many of us have felt a huge amount of dissatisfaction with the communication from the White House on the great work our men and women in Iraq do on a daily basis. This would give an excellent forum for the Bush administration to highlight all of that as well as to continually drive home the goals for the Iraq phase of the war on terror, which they have generally only done when they could no longer avoid doing so for political reasons.
I am no great fan of the Senate GOP leadership, but when faced with an increasingly skeptical public, a more or less silent White House, and the Democratic initiative to force a timetable from Bush, this might be the best of a bad situation. At least, as I wrote above, it doesn't have to be a net negative.
I urge people to read through the excellent comments disagreeing with me from the CQ community. If nothing else, it proves that Captain's Quarters is no echo chamber. Be sure to check out Hugh's post for contact information if you want to protest the Republican action in the Senate.
Where was I when? I decided to work hard this afternoon as Rush was on vacation and the boring host was on. I got a lot accomplished.