Attorney General Admits Bush Allowed 9/11 to Happen

In San Francisco this week, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey got so desperate to prove that we have to let Smirky/Darth break every law and stomp on every civil right, he actually admitted that this maladministration let Al Qaeda attack on 9/11.

Officials "shouldn't need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that's the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that's the call that we didn't know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."

As Glenn Greenwald makes clear, this is both a lie and an admission of culpability.

Even under the "old" FISA, no warrants are required where the targeted person is outside the U.S. (Afghanistan) and calls into the U.S. Thus, if it's really true, as Mukasey now claims, that the Bush administration knew about a Terrorist in an Afghan safe house making Terrorist-planning calls into the U.S., then they could have -- and should have -- eavesdropped on that call and didn't need a warrant to do so. So why didn't they? Mukasey's new claim that FISA's warrant requirements prevented discovery of the 9/11 attacks and caused the deaths of 3,000 Americans is disgusting and reckless, because it's all based on the lie that FISA required a warrant for targeting the "Afghan safe house." It just didn't.

Greenwald exposes many other despicable Mukasey lies, but don't let the cascade of lies obscure the truth that slipped out:

We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went.

Hard to imagine a more blatant failure to keep the nation safe, a more blatant provision of aid and comfort to an enemy, a more blatant example of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Attorney General Admits Bush Allowed 9/11 to Happen" >>

For Fear Of Fear

It has been an exciting and fascinating two days, yesterday and today. It has been the best, and worst, of American democracy in action. The thrill of victory; the agony of a weak defeat, snatched from the strong jaws of victory. Yesterday we were giddy with the knowledge that the Democratic Senate Leadership had actually stood up, not just to the Bush/Cheney/Republican cabal of maximum everything in wiretapping and privacy invasion, but in the name or the Constitution and righteousness. Today, reality came crashing back down to earth for those of us in the reality based community.

Yesterday, the Senate led by Harry Reid and the Democrats fought off cloture and a vote on the contemptible Jello Jay Rockefeller crafted SSCI FISA Update Bill that, in addition to other ills, provided immunity to Dick Cheney, George Bush, other Administration malefactors and, as somewhat of an afterthought, participating telcos. That was a good thing. There were already whispers and scuttlebutt of a "brief extension" of the truly contemptible Protect America Act. As I have argued for some time now, there are inherent problems with such a "routine brief extension".

I repeat what I said yesterday on this “brief extension” nonsense. It is nothing but sheer political posturing that brings us down to the level of the Repuglicans AND weakens our case at the same time. Take a stand for the proper principles, and stand behind them as opposed to injecting harmful BS for the sole sake of cornering your opponent; which is a fine and appropriate tactic, if it doesn’t undercut your core principle in the process. Here, it will weaken the core principle and argument in it’s favor and should NOT be considered; especially since it is not necessary “to protect us” in the least, and blindly saying that it is so necessary is ridiculous.

NO EXTENSION! There is no need whatsoever for an extension, because A) The Administration can order any comprehensive program, or programs, they want prior to the lapse of the PAA and that program(s) will stay in effect for one full year “to protect us”; and B) the original FISA law is reinstated. Furthermore, passage of any extension is a wolf in sheep’s clothing because is equitably removes and/or weakens many arguments and defenses that opponents, like us, to the PAA had from it’s original passage in August 2007. At the time of the original passage of the PAA, most congressmembers voted based upon false and misleading facts provided by the Administration, McConnell and Hayden; voted under a false fear that the country was in jeopardy of an imminent major attack (another direct lie), were not aware of the secret memos produced by OLC behind the Administration program that were legally indefensible, etc. If we now vote to extend the PAA, we not only effectively remove and/or undercut all those germane defenses/explanations, we also give credence to the position that there is some merit and legality to the PAA. There is absolutely no need for an extension and passing one weakens our side’s position. THERE MUST BE NO EXTENSION. (lame grammatical errors in original corrected)

Today we didn't get what I had feared, we got worse. Thanks to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and the usual cast of nefarious Republican characters, Congress has agreed to a fifteen day extension of the horrendous Protect America Act, thus weakening our defenses and objections to the despicable and fraudulent tactics by the adversary that produced it, and they didn't even grab a political advantage in the process. The worst of both worlds, so to speak. Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously said that we "have nothing to fear but fear itself". Today, we once again flinched in the face of falsely injected fear of fear.

Cross Posted From Emptywheel

There's more: "For Fear Of Fear" >>

Crazed, Sick Cretins or Opportunistic Fascists?

The following is from an article in the New York Times Magazine by Jeff Rosen scheduled for release on September 9, 2007. The article describes the thoughts and experiences of Jack Goldsmith, a former head of the Attorney General's Office of Legal Counsel.

..Goldsmith deplored the way the White House tried to fix the problem, which was highly contemptuous of Congress and the courts. “We’re one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court,” Goldsmith recalls Addington telling him in February 2004.

In his book, Goldsmith claims that Addington and other top officials treated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act the same way they handled other laws they objected to: “They blew through them in secret based on flimsy legal opinions that they guarded closely so no one could question the legal basis for the operations,” he writes. Goldsmith’s first experienced this extraordinary concealment, or “strict compartmentalization,” in late 2003 when, he recalls, Addington angrily denied a request by the N.S.A.’s inspector general to see a copy of the Office of Legal Counsel’s legal analysis supporting the secret surveillance program. “Before I arrived in O.L.C., not even N.S.A. lawyers were allowed to see the Justice Department’s legal analysis of what N.S.A. was doing,” Goldsmith writes.

Goldsmith also witnessed perhaps the most well-known confrontation over the administration’s aggressive tactics: the scene at Ashcroft’s hospital bed on March 10, 2004, when Gonzales and Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, visited the hospital to demand that the ailing Ashcroft approve, over Goldsmith and Comey’s objections, a secret program that was about to expire. (Goldsmith refuses to identify the program, but Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, has publicly indicated it was the terrorist surveillance program.) As he recalled it to me, Goldsmith received a call in the evening from his deputy, Philbin, telling him to go to the George Washington University Hospital immediately, since Gonzales and Card were on the way there. Goldsmith raced to the hospital, double-parked outside and walked into a dark room. Ashcroft lay with a bright light shining on him and tubes and wires coming out of his body.

Suddenly, Gonzales and Card came in the room and announced that they were there in connection with the classified program. “Ashcroft, who looked like he was near death, sort of puffed up his chest,” Goldsmith recalls. “All of a sudden, energy and color came into his face, and he said that he didn’t appreciate them coming to visit him under those circumstances, that he had concerns about the matter they were asking about and that, in any event, he wasn’t the attorney general at the moment; Jim Comey was. He actually gave a two-minute speech, and I was sure at the end of it he was going to die. It was the most amazing scene I’ve ever witnessed.”

After a bit of silence, Goldsmith told me, Gonzales thanked Ashcroft, and he and Card walked out of the room. “At that moment,” Goldsmith recalled, “Mrs. Ashcroft, who obviously couldn’t believe what she saw happening to her sick husband, looked at Gonzales and Card as they walked out of the room and stuck her tongue out at them. (Emphasis added)

Well, here we have what is unquestionably the most powerful lawyer in the Bush Administration, Cheney Chief of Staff and Counsel David Addington, pining away for another terrorist bombing of the United States so that the Administration can cravenly grab even more power and completely eviscerate the Fourth Amendment. And, as Goldsmith relates, that extra authoritarian/dictatorial power is exactly what everybody in the Administration wanted desperately; so you can easily presume they were all similarly hoping for just such an event so they could grab their dream. Wonderful, eh?

If that were not enough cretinous craving for you, we now have the further details of their attempts to take advantage of the medically debilitated and incapacitated John Ashcroft in the hospital ICU. My hat is off to Mrs. Ashcroft for sticking her tongue out at these evil rubes. My answer to the question posed in the title to this piece is both.

There's more: "Crazed, Sick Cretins or Opportunistic Fascists?" >>