Thwarting Democracy...

Democrats sure do not act Democratic at times. The only reason gay marriage is the law in Massachusetts is because a court imposed it on that state.

Now, in order to thwart an intelligence program that they lack the votes to stop, they decide to let the trial lawyers handle it, as the Wall Street Journal explains:

We asked one phone company executive what he'd do, after Friday's expiration, in response to a government request for cooperation. His answer was blunt: "I'm not doing it. If I don't have compulsion, I can't get out of court [and those lawsuits]. . . . I'm not going to do something voluntarily." Having talked to telecom executives, we can tell you this view is well-nigh universal.

Mr. Reyes claims that existing wiretap orders can stay in place for a year. But that doesn't account for new targets, which may require new kinds of telecom cooperation and thus a new court order. Mr. Reyes can make all the assertions he wants about immunity, but they are no defense against a lawsuit. For that matter, without a statute in place, even a renewed order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is likely to be challenged as illegitimate. A telecom CEO who cooperates without a court order is all but guaranteed to get not merely a wiretap lawsuit, but also a shareholder suit for putting the company at legal risk.

George W. Bush wins two presidential elections. He is the commander-in-chief, and as such, is responsible for this country's security. His approach was explicitly chosen in 2004, during the war.

Instead, trial lawyers and activist judges will subvert the will of the people.

A power play fails...

The Dems had to pull their joke of a surveillance bill yesterday. In essence, they were trying to force a law-enforcement model on the military - and to do so without allowing any amandments or a real debate.

That power play failed, and the Dems are going to shift to more SCHIP demagougery - an endeavor that will be more likely to succeed thanks to the antics of some on the right.

Not a good situation for the Dems at all.

Worth a look...

Newsweek takes a lot of grief over the Koran-flushing story (see this old post from Austin Bay). They deserve to, if you ask me.

But this interview with John Scott Redd is worth reading.

Keep in mind, they are doing a lot. Then think about how certain groups want to tie the intelligence community's legs together with the help of certain politicians and the media.

Let's make sure this guy has the tools - and the freedom to use them - that he will need to stop the terrorists before they kill.

And they think a fence is the solution?

Well, it looks as if the drug lords are gonna find another way - never mind the "message" a fence was supposed to send. There have been tunnels under the border, which I've discussed before. This time, it was a sub. And think this over - in the Pacific, our ASW training is being restricted by federal judges.

If you can run drugs in, you can get people in. And the Coast Guard's modernization has had its share of problems.

The real key to good border security isn't a fence - it's good intelligence, and having common-sense laws that meet everyone's needs. Right now, the business community's labor needs are not being met, and as such, the black market has filled the gap all too well. The Y and Z visas could have solved the problem. But they got deemed "amnesty" by a bunch of self-appointed commissars in the pundit class and on the talk radio shows - and the bill died.

We need to deal with reality as it is. Not the way certain people want things to be for the purposes of pushing their agenda.

I'll take the stronger law...

AJ-Strata is worried that the Dems may have mis-written the FISA law re-write.

This kinda reminds me of that Monopoly card that says, "Bank error in your favor."

Now, we have a much better bargaining position. In essence, we need to double down and ask for MORE leeway for the intelligence community, not less. The more leeway they get, the better our chances of slamming the door on terrorist attacks.

Plus, at this point, the Dems will try to tie our intelligence agencies' hands behind their backs, and expect them to win the fight. This will not play well among the general public. To quote John Buford in Gettysburg: "Lovely! Lovely!"

NSA bill passed... Pelosi vows to amend

Nancy Pelosi is promising to amend a more permanent version of the NSA bill that just passed Congress.

That said, as I point out at Strategypage today, the damage is already done. We will not recover a lot of the ability to gather intelligence that we lost due to compromised projects. And it will be a while until the NSA feels secure enough that it will take risks to protect the country - as opposed to doing nothing in order to avoid a lawsuit.

As a result, terrorists could have a clean shot at us. I hope that Pulitzer was worth it to Risen.

Congress lets secrets out... again...

AJ-Strata has a great post that discusses how badly our intelligence efforts in the war on terror are being compromised.

This is just appalling. We're at war, and people are thinking of the NSA as the bigger threat to Americans when we have terrorists who do things like blow themselves up in pizza parlors and fly passenger planes into building?

When Congress does stuff like this, I really begin to think that Ollie North's approach when faced with the need to protect people in an operation that was shutting down is the right one. Maybe it is time to make Congress EARN security clearances.

Now they don't like alternative analysis...

Captain's Quarters has a good breakdown of the latest cheap shots at Doug Feith. The key paragraph:

In this case, the Secretary and Undersecretary of Defense wanted an investigation of intel to determine whether Iraq had operational ties to al-Qaeda, a reasonable question given the circumstances. The CIA -- which the Democrats believe got it wrong on WMD -- didn't believe that radical Islamists would cooperate with the supposedly secular Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz authorized Feith to review the intelligence to see if evidence existed for a different conclusion, and Feith found enough contacts between Saddam and AQ to at least challenge the notion that they would have never considered a partnership.

In other words, the same CIA that failed to predict the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the 1991 coup in the Soviet Union, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and 9/11, was supposed to be trusted by the DOD. I don't think so. If anything, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and the others who were criticized by Democrats simply did their job.

There is always a benefit of getting a second opinion on things. Especially when one is dealing with a high-stakes situation. The Inspector General's report is nothing more than pandering to the Democratic Congress, which will be running with this to justify stabbing the troops in the back.