We Tortured and We'd Do It Again

FISA Watch

Lara Jakes Jordan writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush threatened a veto Tuesday in the debate to update terrorist surveillance laws, assailing Democratic plans to deny protection from lawsuits for telecommunications providers that let the government spy on U.S. residents after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"The threat came in a 12-page letter to Senate leaders from Attorney General Michael Mukasey and National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell. It was issued as lawmakers prepare to vote on legislation seeking to update a 1978 surveillance law without violating privacy rights."

Here's the letter, via blogger emptywheel.

"'If the president is sent a bill that does not provide the U.S. intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect the nation, the president will veto the bill,' wrote Mukasey and McConnell. . . .

"The administration's veto threat was aimed at amendments that would bar retroactive immunity to phone companies and other telecom providers that have given the government access to e-mails and phone calls linked to people in the United States. Without the retroactive protections, the letter noted, telecom providers might be unwilling to help the government track down terror suspects in the future as they were asked to do in the days following the 2001 attacks.

"'Private citizens who respond in good faith to a request for assistance by public officials should not beheld liable for their actions,' Mukasey and McConnell wrote."

Walter Pincus writes in The Washington Post that another of the controversial amendments "would require the attorney general and the director of national intelligence to certify that any surveillance the government conducts 'is limited to communications' involving specific individual targets reasonably believed to be outside the United States.

"A third would require that a special court approve surveillance if a 'significant purpose' of that effort is to acquire the communications of a person reasonably believed to be inside the United States.

"The latter two are meant to prevent unauthorized government spying on U.S. citizens and residents. But McConnell and Mukasey complained that they would create 'unacceptable operational uncertainties and problems,' hindering intelligence-gathering when a foreign terrorist overseas is calling into the United States."

State Secrets Watch

Paul Elias writes for the Associated Press: "Bush administration lawyers cited national security concerns Tuesday in urging a federal judge to toss out a lawsuit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA secretly fly terrorism suspects to overseas prisons to be tortured.

"The American Civil Liberties Union sued Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. last year in San Jose federal court, accusing it of aiding the CIA in the 'forced disappearance, torture and inhumane treatment' of five suspected terrorists in violation of national and international laws. The ACLU alleges that Jeppesen, based in San Jose, knowingly participated in the program by supplying aircraft, crews and logistical support to the CIA flights.

"On Tuesday, Justice Department lawyers asked U.S. District Judge James Ware to toss the lawsuit without further litigation because of unspecified national security risks. . . .

"ACLU lawyers argued Tuesday that . . . security concerns are trumped because the rendition program is public knowledge. . . .

"On Tuesday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Abate said Bush and other high-ranking officials have discussed the program only in broad terms and that 'this did not declassify any of the specifics.'"

Signing Statements Watch

The Dallas Morning News editorial board writes: "One has to wonder: What's the point of having a Congress if the president believes he can pick and choose which of its laws apply to him?....

"If the president believes a bill is unconstitutional, he has a responsibility to veto it. If he signs it into law, he has a responsibility to obey its provisions, not just the ones he likes. To do otherwise is to undermine the rule of law and the confidence of the people in their government. This reckless expansion of executive branch power sets a precedent Congress and the nation will come bitterly to regret."

Bush's Impact on the Election

Michael Gerson writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "The revival of McCain's campaign was possible for one reason: the revival of American fortunes in Iraq. . . .

"McCain's stubbornness on Iraq is transformed by the calendar into courage. The issue that was supposed to dominate the campaign and destroy the Republicans has helped to elevate a strong Republican candidate. And in spite of past bad blood between President Bush and McCain, it was Bush's decision on the surge that allowed McCain's remarkable comeback. If we ever see a President McCain, he will have President Bush to thank."

Harold Meyerson writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "A more direct affront to the Republican strategy devised by Karl Rove -- to build support within the party's right-wing base and then try to win over just enough moderates to carry elections -- cannot be imagined.

"McCain's whole campaign is anti-Rovian. His core supporters are Republican moderates and Republican-inclined independents, and then he picks off enough conservatives to prevail. . . .

"With his preemptive war and seemingly permanent occupation in Iraq, and his attempt to privatize Social Security, George W. Bush pushed American conservatism past the point where the American people were willing to go -- pushed them, in fact, to the point where they recoiled at the conservative project. . . .

"The conservative agenda has been winnowed down to supporting what remains of Bushism. That's not only a losing formula for November, it also means that intellectually, conservatism is running on empty."

Andrew Greeley writes in his Chicago Sun-Times opinion column that "the GOP will be the party of war and the Democrats the party of peace, in a situation in which the war is overwhelmingly unpopular.

"One more beautiful political achievement for the present incumbent of the White House."

DailyKos blogger Kagro X suggests the story behind all the enormous voter turnout: "Everyone hates Bush, and they literally cannot wait for his presidency to be over. Any symbolic step they can take toward pushing him out of the White House and out of their minds can't come soon enough for them."

Budget Watch

At least one constituency is happy with Bush's budget

Bill Rigby writes for Reuters: "Top U.S. defense company executives welcomed President George W. Bush's record-setting arms budget proposal on Tuesday. . . .

"Defense firms like Lockheed Martin Corp and Raytheon Co have thrived -- and their share prices soared -- in almost five years since U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq on the back of ballooning defense spending. . . .

"Bush on Monday proposed a $515.4 billion budget for the Defense Department's 2009 fiscal year, up 7.5 percent from this year and setting a record in dollar terms. . . .

"The Pentagon's proposed budget includes full funding for key Lockheed plane programs, such as the F-35 and F-22 fighter jets and the C-130J transport plane, quashing fears that high-profile, big-ticket programs might get pruned."

And the defense contractors are apparently confident that even if a Democratic president ends the war in Iraq, it will still pay dividends for years.

"Robert Stevens, chief executive of Lockheed, the U.S. largest defense contractor . . . acknowledged that an accelerated withdrawal of troops from Iraq, as proposed by leading Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, 'will impact funds flows' to military contractors.

"Yet he stressed the next priority was replacing worn-out equipment: 'The last number of years, at a very high operational tempo, really has used the useful life of a lot of systems. It's time to replace those systems as well.'"

Missing E-Mail Watch

The New York Times editorial board blogs about the White House e-mail scandal: "We suppose that there could be some innocent explanation for all of this, but it has at least a whiff of Watergate. Back then, of course, all that went missing was 18 1/2 minutes of audio tape. Now, it appears to be 10 million e-mails. The Bush administration may have a lot more to hide -- or it could simply be a testament to the proliferation of incriminating information in an age of e-mail."

Karl Rove Watch

Joel Achenbach blogs for The Washington Post about Karl Rove's inaugural appearance as a Fox News commentator yesterday: "Instant review, subject to revision: As a pundit, Rove is a strikingly bland presence on TV. A big vanilla wafer of a man."

Jon Stewart talked to Fox Anchor Chris Wallace about Rove's new gig. "Do you think that now that he's there, Fox News will now get access to this administration?" Stewart asked.

Wallace asked if Stewart had a message he'd like delivered to Rove. "Does lying feel bad?" Stewart suggested. "Just ask him. Just say, when he's talking . . . just lean in every now and then and say: 'Lying. Does a little piece of you die inside when you do it?'"

Stewart suggested that "it's probably difficult to have him as a contributor because in your heart, wouldn't you want to say: 'Hey, remember when you said you weren't involved in the Plame thing? You were kind of involved.' . . Or wouldn't you want say, 'Hey, remember when that study came out and said you guys lied like 935 times about Iraq?'"

Cartoon Watch

Tony Auth on Bush's relevance; Mike Luckovich on Bush's shoes; Tom Toles on Bush's repossession; Daniel Wasserman on turnout; Nick Anderson, Ben Sargent and Dwane Powell on the Bush budget legacy.