Posted on 08/04/2007 11:50:39 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Much has been said in the mainstream media about how the Bush presidency is essentially over, a lame duck mired in controversy. Thursday, however, George W. Bush demonstrated that when he does wish to use the bully pulpit, especially with powerful allies like Mitch McConnell in the United States Senate, he very much can move legislation through in a very timely fashion.
Throughout this week in both houses of Congress, there has been consideration and negotiation on a piece of legislation submitted by Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, the National Director of Intelligence, who very clearly spelled out in Congressional testimony that there are gaping holes in the FISA laws that prevent our intelligence community from acquiring information that would help them detect and prevent another attack on U.S. soil. Without this legislation, Admiral McConnell forcefully stated in his testimony, our country remains extremely vulnerable, and unnecessarily so, to acts of terror. Naturally, both chambers this week played politics with the issue. But as the week headed quickly towards the August recess, a key sequence of events took place.
On Friday, President Bush, surrounded by his national security team, gave a short speech calling out Congress to stop the bickering, end the stalling, and pass this legislation. After explaining the urgency of fixing the hole in the FISA law, he stated that he was calling on Congress to remain in session and work through their August recess until they get him a bill he could sign. He went on to say that whatever legislation ended up on his desk would have to meet with the approval of the Admiral, or he would veto it. And Friday afternoon, President Bush got some help in the Senate by Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who threatened to keep the Senate from adjourning until they act. And Friday night, act they did.
Simply put, there were two bills that were voted on late Friday night in the Senate that both addressed the fixing of the FISA law. One was offered by Mitch McConnell and Missouri Senator Kit Bond, written largely to meet the requests of the Director of National Intelligence. The other was offered by West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller, and was deemed to not give what Admiral McConnell called the bare minimum of what would be required for him and his people to do their job.
The vote commenced on the McConnell-Bond measure shortly after 9PM, to be followed by the vote on the Rockefeller version. For either bill to pass on to the House, it required a 60 vote margin. What made this vote dramatic was that there were several Senators from both sides of the aisle who had already left town for previous commitments, making it even that much harder to achieve the 60 vote hurdle. Due to a lot of successful lobbying going on the floor while the vote was taking place, seventeen Democrats joined the remaining Republicans to pass the measure, 60-28. What won’t get reported very widely is that during the waning moments of the vote, McConnell, Bond and Republican leadership were franticly doing the math, realizing they only had 58 ayes, and somehow convinced Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu and Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye that they really didn’t want to have to hang around until Monday and still be required to vote on this all over again. Both changed their vote giving McConnell, Bush, and the country the 60 votes they needed to close the loophole in the FISA law.
One notable Democrat who did not join the bipartisan bill was New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who apparently is not concerned that we can’t, because of outdated law, do everything in our power to prevent another terrorist act in the United States. And remember, she is running to be the Protector-In-Chief next November.
Next up was the Rockefeller bill, which fell much more along party lines, failing 43-45 While a close vote, this fell far short of the 60 required for passage. With that, the Senate adjourned for the August recess, throwing the political hot potato squarely into the lap of Nancy Pelosi.
Earlier in the week, the Republican Caucus in the House showed that when push comes to shove, the Republican Party is still the serious party when it comes to national security by signing a letter to Speaker Pelosi demanding similar language be passed in the House. The GOP hasn’t been able to show that much unanimity lately on what time it is, let alone something as serious as this legislation. But even with a monolithic opposition demanding action in the House, Pelosi, as of this writing, had decided to fiddle.
While a third of the Senate Democrats recognized the magnitude of the political fallout they’d face if a terrorist act was committed on U.S. soil, especially an event that could have been detected or prevented were it not for partisan games, Pelosi and the Democrats in the House were busy Thursday night and Friday playing Houdini with votes, magically changing tallies, then making votes disappear completely from the record when challenged. In fact, there was a Florida 2000 flashback earlier Friday when the voting machines in the House suddenly stopped working. But Nancy Pelosi has much more now than dimpled chads to worry about in the House.
Speaker Pelosi is in a very untenable position. She now bears entirely the weight of improving the national security of the United States. She will try to spin it differently, but every moment she waits, trying to find a political way out of the predicament she finds herself in, she is vulnerable to being held responsible if something really bad happens here. If the McConnell-Bond bill were to pass the House, it would be signed immediately by the President, and become law that second. There is no implementation delay. As soon as the ink is dry, Admiral Mike McConnell can start changing procedures he deems vital for the protection of the country at once.
So what are Pelosi’s options? She could bring up the bill as is, with no amendments, and call for a vote. Considering the number of Democrats in the Senate who helped it pass, it's almost certain to pass the House. But if Pelosi plays games with this, or if one comma is changed in the House version, the bill would have to go to a conference committee, which can’t now happen anytime soon because the Senate has recessed. They’ve done their job. Pelosi has to pass the bill as is. We hope she sees this and does what’s better for the country than satisfying her ACLU base.
Here’s her conundrum, however. If Pelosi does push this bill through, which she almost certainly has to, she will send her members home after the vote for their August recess to face a base that will be just as angry, just as ramped up as the Republican base by and large was during the recent immigration debate. Will she have the courage to stand up to her kook fringe and do what’s right? Will she be able to regain control of the reins of the House of Representatives after she so badly mismanaged it this week? Or is she so beholden to powerful lobbies within the Democratic base that she will turn her back on the national security of the country to placate the left wing fringe? We’ll stay tuned and report.
In the meantime, kudos go out to the President, McConnell, especially yeoman’s work by Kit Bond, and the 17 Senate Democrats who, for whatever motivation, still put the interests of the country ahead of party.
I knew she had a dunce cap, but I hadn’t heard about the hot seat. Poor thing...
Zogby: Congress At 3% Approval Rating
In Handling Iraq War
Good article, thanks for posting it. Kudos to McConnell and GW.
I expect Pelosi to not support the security of the United States. The left wing fringe are just the ‘useful idiots’ oft referred to.
Due to a lot of successful lobbying going on the floor while the vote was taking place, seventeen Democrats joined the remaining Republicans to pass the measure, 60-28.
They were lobbying? Great. What did they give away?????
“One notable Democrat who did not join the bipartisan bill was New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who apparently is not concerned that we can’t, because of outdated law, do everything in our power to prevent another terrorist act in the United States. And remember, she is running to be the Protector-In-Chief next November.”
Sure, it’s not that New York has anything to worry about from terrorists.
I hope her constituency rips her a new one over this. I never seriously thought HillBilly would be the Dem nominee, perhaps this will be the beginning of the end. However, Obama’s not electable - who will they run?
Gore.
Hillary is too disliked, Obama is too inexperienced and Edwards is too phoney. Gore and a core of supporters believe he was robbed in 2000. He is owed big time so I think even given all his protestations he will agree to run to save the dems.
It would help if she wouldn’t put it on backwards.
That is Nancy Pelugly isn’t it?
Look at that determination. You can just tell she’s either got to take a dump or she just heard ‘The Surge’ is working.
I’m thinking this photo alone would rule her our as the next female Bachelor on ABC.
She’s wearing an autumn scarf, but at her age wouldn’t a late December motife be more fitting?
I’m not sure if this get-up wins out over Hillary in the Arafat scarf or not. It’s a real hurl your cookies barf off.
Some women will do anything to hide the ole adams-apple and the bathtowel sized wrinkles around the neck.
Instead of baseball cards, they could just put out a series like this as a birth control set. One picture a week like this outa just about do it.
Here she is knowing she’s going to be photographed. Yep it’s a Kodak moment and this is the best ‘touch of vogue’ she could muster. Yikes!
Speaker Pelosi Is In The Hot Seat Over National Security
what is the probelm??? ... piglosi is all about national security....of our enemies.....
she just is NOT about national security of the US!!!!
this, I'm afraid is an empty threat or wishful thinking. It will be blamed on Bush even well into the next Democratic presidency (hoping against hope that is long after '08)
The Senate version passed last night in the House. Two defections by the Republicans over 40 democrates defected to support the Republicans.
Considering she is part of the KOOK fringe, I doubt it!
Or is she so beholden to powerful lobbies within the Democratic base that she will turn her back on the national security of the country to placate the left wing fringe?
To a liberal moonbat like Pelosi, national security means getting Bush out of office or powerless. I'm sure she thinks we deserve it if AQ manages to attack us again
Great article by Hewitt. I like his question regarding Nan doing what’s best for the country or placating the left wing fringe, that’s exactly what it boils down to.
.
Well .. I think it was a setup!
The dem leadership didn’t want to vote for ANYTHING-BUSH! So to protect their status with the KOOKS - they voted against it .. knowing full well that 17 dems would vote for it. Therefore, if another attack happens on their watch, they can PRETEND they supported the intelligence bill.
THE DEMS NEVER DO ANYTHING - ANYTHING! - THAT IS NOT METERED TO GAIN THEM VOTES.
For some heavy read....
Terrorists in Their Own Words -(A compilation drawn from translations ......)
********************Intro***************
Islamist terrorists have long been at war with the United States and frequently have proclaimed their determination to win the war. In fact, they see their enemies' unwillingness to acknowledge this war as an act of cowardice. If their enemies refuse to wear the mantle of warrior, terrorists assume that they are weak, lacking in honor, and spiritually inferior—and the notion that their enemy is vulnerable emboldens them. Failing to acknowledge that we are at war only encourages the enemy to be more warlike.
Conclusive proof that terrorists are at war with us requires little more than reading their own words. A compilation drawn from translations of a number of authoritative sources illustrates the nature of the challenge that America and its allies face and what needs to be done to combat it.
*************************************
There is a book (now available in paperback ):
***********************
Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
(Hardcover)
by David Horowitz
********************************************************
And reviews:
****************************************
Editorial Reviews
Rich Lowry, Editor National Review
David Horowitz is synonymous with pyrotechnics. A historian and polemicist of the first order, he is paid the ultimate compliment --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Davis Hanson, Author, Ripples of Battle
An original look at those who want us to fail in the Middle East, both at home and abroad. The --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
***********************************************************
See all Editorial Reviews
Fascinating Analysis of Leftist Goals, August 13, 2006
Reviewer: N. Sincerity - See all my reviews
A former 1960s radical, Horowitz is well-acquainted with the Leftist mindset. In this book, he strives to explain the modern alliance between left wing progressivists and radical Islamofascists. He argues that this alliance is based on a common desire to destroy Western capitalism. Leftist sympathy with Islamofascist ideas makes no sense from an intellectual point of view, given that countries ruled by radical Islamists are among the most racist, sexist, theocratic states in the world today. However, Leftists have recognized that they can benefit politically from destructive terrorist attacks on the Western world. A West under attack can be made to turn on its leaders in fear and desperation (as they did in Spain after the Madrid train bombings). Only once people reject current government structures can the Left execute its anti-capitalist revolution and build a new reality that mirrors the Leftist view of utopia.
The complete and utter idealogical hypocrisy of the Islamofascist-Leftist alliance is distressing, but as Horowitz reminds us,
***************************************
I agree. Gore could win this election. He is more or less in the same poistion that Nixon was in 1968 with respect to the party. He is just as liberal as Hillary but doesn’t have her negatives.
Clintonista Congressman Rahm Emanuel was on TV attacking the bill as giving too much power to Gonzalez. Most of the ‘Rats are more concerned with their obsessive hatred of Bush than they are with national security. I’m afraid some would welcome a terrorist attack, if the death toll was not too high and if it could be used to ensure a Democratic victory in the 2008 Presidential election.
Couldn’t agree more!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.