FISA fight: No more band-aids; Update: “The height of irresponsibility”
Scroll down for updates…
It is good to see President Bush and the Republicans standing their ground and reaffirming that there are still differences left between the two major political parties. In the wake of the Senate Dems’ retreat on FISA, Bush is pressuring House Democrats to send him a permanent FISA fix–not the same, old temporary band-aids.
The Hill reports on the showdown:
In a move that puts great pressure on the House, President Bush said Wednesday that he would not sign any more temporary extensions to legislation updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Bush praised the Senate for passing a long-term FISA fix Tuesday by a “wide, bipartisan” majority. He added that there is “no reason” why the House could not “immediately” pass the same bill.
Congress last summer passed a FISA update but, in the hopes of revisiting the issue, included a sunset provision that would have let it expire earlier this year. When work on a long-term bill was not completed by the deadline, congressional leaders and the White House agreed to a two-week extension.
However, Bush’s statement indicates that he has had enough. He blasted the House for having “failed to pass a good bill” since last summer.
GOP whip Roy Blunt sends the following statement:
House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) issued the following statement today after the president announced that, should House Democrats attempt to further delay a vote on fixing the terrorist loophole in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), he will veto the 21-day extension the majority reportedly will attempt to pass this afternoon:
“That the majority would continue to drag its feet on closing the terrorist loophole in FISA is nothing new; the last six months have shown them quite adept at kicking the can down the road, all the while hoping never to find its end.
“Fortunately for the American people, today is where that road ends. And, as the president warned this morning: if Democrats attempt to sneak through another temporary, short-term bill, they’ll find a vetoed piece of legislation on the other end.
“Six-months have passed since Democrats first sought to avert their attention from the urgent needs of our intelligence community. In that time, we’ve seen temporary patches on the heels of short-term fixes on the backs of emergency stopgaps. But not once have we seen a legitimate attempt at a genuine, long-term fix for the gaping loophole that persists today.
“It’s time the majority comes to the realization that passing a long-term fix to the terrorist loophole – that also extends protection to companies that cooperated with our intelligence agencies following 9/11 – is the only responsible course of action. And if they can’t arrive at the conclusion themselves, perhaps Republicans in the House can help them to it.”
Update 1:15pm Eastern. Just in from John Boehner’s office…
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on the decision by House Democratic leaders to consider another temporary extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) instead of passing the bipartisan, Senate-passed bill:
“The refusal of House Democratic leaders to promptly consider the bipartisan Senate bill is the height of irresponsibility. A bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate joined together yesterday to give our intelligence officials all the tools they need to keep America safe while adding appropriate liability protections for patriotic third parties who have helped us defend our country. A group of Blue Dog Democrats has written to Speaker Pelosi, asking her to schedule this bill for quick passage on the House floor. And President Bush is fully prepared to sign the measure into law. So, it is clear that only a small group of House Democratic leaders stand in the way of making this critical national security legislation the law of the land.
“Our terrorist surveillance laws are critical to keeping our nation safe from attack, and until we modernize them, our intelligence officials will be at a significant disadvantage against the terrorists who threaten our way of life. The Senate-passed bill would modernize these laws in the long-term so intelligence officials – not government lawyers – are entrusted to protect our national security. President Bush has said he will not sign another temporary measure that only kicks the can farther down the road, and I stand behind that decision.
“The Majority has played games with FISA modernization for months on end, and today, those games must end. Delaying action on a long-term modernization bill puts our national security at risk. It’s time for House Democratic leaders to do the right thing and allow the House to consider the Senate’s bipartisan bill so President Bush can sign it into law.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: FISA
Pundit & Pundette
» States in dire straits
Riehl World View
» Douthat v Sullivan: Name The "Delusional Liar"Sister Toldjah
» Josh Marshall: Sarah Palin is “probably mentally unstable”Sister Toldjah
» A resolution honoring Michael Jackson? Are you kidding me?Stop The ACLU
» Radical Obama: Anti-American Militarism
Here is yet another national security issue that the Dems were going to sell down the river to placate the ACLU, and their various other anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, anti-American interest groups.
Good on President Bush. Would a President McCain do the same thing, or would he think that “Big Telecom” was getting away with something here?
The sad part is I’m not really sure about that.
This would be a very relevant question for all the candidates.
I’m all for listening in on the terrorists!
Lame duck indeed. Go George!
Let’s see this rammed home in the General Election Debates. McCain is going to have to define Obama’s positions if the candidate himself isn’t willing to.
Otherwise, we remain hosed.
The lib’s want to allow the terrorist’s to be able to sue the telecommunication companies that work with U.S. Intel. agencies. I guess that is the “we are against the war” part of “we support our troops, but not the war” mantra.
I still love the editorial cartoon (I will post the link if I can find it) of AlGore before and after 9/11.
Before: Illegal wiretaps!!!
After: We should have been listening in!!!
The liberal mindset is that every wiretap is “unwarranted”.
No, every wiretap is warranted if the call is to suspected/known terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, organizations………
I am NOT a fan of McCain but I do suspect he would be throwing a tantrum at the Dems and calling them on the carpet over this. One thing he isn’t afaid to do is ruffle feathers. At least fighting terrorists is one issue where he is on our side.
Bush won’t back down but he is and has been way too “civil” about the public discourse.
Obama/Hill will over turn this by executive order on their first day. And for good measure they will appoint liberals to the FCC and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine. And that’s day one by nine am. That will give them the rest of the day to wreck havoc.
Well said.
I fear Marshall Russ is right on #8. I truly fear for what will become of our country. We have a family friend whose daughter is an “intern” for the Obama campaign. I asked her over the holidays where exactly he stood on a number of issues and I got the old deer in the headlights look and all she could do was talk about “hope” and the fact that if we have things like fisa we’re no better than the terrorists. I wanted to say to her that she was 12 when 9/11 happened and she has forgotten but since I really like her parents and her father outranks my husband, I kept my big trap shut.
However, if McCain is elected I do think he’ll stick to his guns on this but one never knows.
I don’t know guys, sounds like the GOP is starting to fight back a little bit here.
Too little to late? Or in time and with enough noise to influence the next election?
Are we going to let the people see the difference in how each party will handle the greatest threat to our freedom since Hitler, or are we going to let the Dhimmicrats keep the focus on subprime lending?
Time will tell.
terrig #10,
Here is an excellent article by one of my favorite writers that you might be able to pass on.
NRO, National Review on-line
Tuesday 12th
“Iraq Is Not the Worry”
It is surrender and self-destruction at home.
By Victor Davis Hanson
What a phony baloney Bush is. He let bin Laden off the hook by concentrating all our resources on Saddam, and is holding the border open for anyone who want to come in, so his blarney on terrorism is simply not credible.
It’s about time Bush put his foot down on this issue!! I hope he will NOT COMPROMISE
with the dems on this issue. The American public is with the Republicans on this issue.
As Fessic would say, “You have fallen for one of the classic blunders…”
Invading Afghanistan to catch a Saudi national, since Afghanistan did not declare war on the US, would have caused us more trouble than Iraq ever has. There seems to be a misconception (I’m being rather kind since I don’t believe the Lefties would actually rely on any facts) that all we had to do to get Bin Laden was to go full-bore into Afghanistan. Read a little history and you will discover that even Alexander the Great had to compromise with the tribal chieftains (and marry into the family) to bring them to heel. Utter nonsense that becomes “Well all they had to do was….” type Monday morning quarterbacking.
I do agree that the President is wrong on his failure to stop illegal immigration, but the idea that we should violate any nation’s sovereignty because there is a criminal within their borders does not make sense. We use diplomatic channels. Otherwise we have no room to complain if another nation does the same. In my heart I would like to go into Mexico and get the murderer of Lance Corporal Maria Lauterbach and her baby, but my head knows it has to be handled differently.
Your credibility gap is showing.
I believe there is some confusion on both sides here. Going full-bore into Afghanistan would not ensure that we got binLadin, but would ensure that we destabilized Iraq and Iran. A more-democratic, stable Afghanistan would be a true challenge to any Saddam regime, and to Iran. At the time, Iran was close to a revolution - and that was ended by our war with Iraq. Iran cracked down on dissent, and nationalism helped the hard-liners there rather than the moderates looking for change. Afghanistan has always been a tough place historically, but our approach has reaped dividends, and full-attention to that problem would have paid off.
All that said, it was too late when Bush-Cheney laid down ultimatums to Iraq they ignored. At that point, we had to go to war, and did.
In my last stint in Iraq I saw very real progress. Let us not forget that the MSM and Dhimmos want us to forget that despite the recent uptick in violence, things are much, much better there.
We have to stay the course. Our soldiers contribute their own money at times to bring school supplies, volleyballs, etc to communities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although tired of deployments, reenlistment rates remain high. What does this tell you? Those Americans on the ground think that it is a worthwhile, doable cause.
Your statement maybe true Aslponse but the Demos have nothing to offer but Sharia Law. You expect doing nothing will work? did that work for Chamberlain in stopping Hitler? When the Brits left Dunkirk did it stop Hitler? So how do you figure you are going to stop these guys when you don’t do anything?