Dizzy Mike McConnell isn't just some drunken beanbag dragged in off the street--he's the damn director of national intelligence, for pity's sake

I don't suppose there's any hope--until January of 2009, that is--of cleansing the federal government of the panoply of cranks, crooks, and ideological wackos it's infested with thanks to the people who pull the strings on the Chimpy the Prez puppet. The best we can hope on this front, it seems, is the slow drip-drip process by which they're run out of town one by one. (Bye-bye, HUD Secretary Alphonse Jackson!)

But really, can't something be done about the garden-variety nitwits?

Case in point: Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell. Oh sure, I've read those puff pieces about how brilliant he is, and how uniquely qualified for this impossible job. But every time he opens his mouth in public, it seems like shreds of his chewed-up brain come clattering out.

The latest public humiliation came in a speech at Furman University, down in the military country of South Carolina, where I guess the director figures they like their public figures not just dumb but mindlessly jingoistic--and did I mention dumb? Director Mike was blithering about the surprising resistance encountered in the Senate to the Bush regime's bully-boy attempts to ram through its dreadfully broadened bill on foreign intelligence surveillance, to replace FISA. From the darkness of his dementia he dribbled:

We had a bill go into the Senate. It was debated vigorously. There were some who said we shouldn't have an Intelligence Community. Some have that point of view. Some say the President of the United States violated the process, spied on Americans, should be impeached and should go to jail. I mean, this is democracy, you can say anything you want to say. That was the argument made. The vote was 68 to 29.

If the Bush regime employed anybody who was either honest, equipped with a working brain, or politically more sophisticated than the late Genghis Khan, the turd would have been fired on the spot, on the ground that he's too stupid not only for government service but for consuming precious oxygen. Yet there was general silence.

At least Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin noticed, and is making a stink. And today he dashed off a letter to our dear dense DNI. TPMMuckraker has the full text, but here's the working part:

As you correctly noted, the bill was the subject of vigorous debate. Many members of the Senate expressed serious concerns about the lack of checks and balances included in the legislation and the potential impact of the new authorities on the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. Many Senators were also concerned that retroactive immunity for companies alleged to have cooperated with the President's warrantless wiretapping program would undermine the rule of law.

However, I am not aware of any Senator saying or suggesting that "we shouldn't have an Intelligence Community" or that President Bush "should be impeached and should go to jail." I would therefore appreciate your providing a list of all statements made by Senators during the debate that you believe support these assertions. If there are no such examples, you should issue an immediate correction and an apology.

While all sides of this debate deserve to be heard, to falsely attribute statements to United States Senators serves only to mislead the American people. It also undermines your credibility and that of the position of Director of National Intelligence.

Now Director Mike doesn't say this crap to amuse himself, and I doubt that he's misspeaking. This stuff really seems to be happening in his tiny brain. Some of the voices he hears there, in fact, are quite interesting. Listen again:

"Some say the President of the United States violated the process, spied on Americans, should be impeached and should go to jail."

Now I'm quite sure that nobody said such a thing in the U.S. Senate. But I'll be happy to say it. Our Chimpy has committed, by conservative count, roughly a zillion grossly impeachable offenses. He should long since have been impeached and thrown out of office to make way for his assorted criminal trials. If I thought Director Mike had a shred of sanity, I might take hope from the fact that apparently he hears voices saying this in his head.

Still, it has to be remembered that this is our director of national intelligence, for goodness' sake. I understand that in the Bush regime "national intelligence" is an oxymoron. Nevertheless, he should at least provide a satisfactory reply to Senator Feingold's letter or have the grace to check into the nearest loony bin.

Here's hoping the senator will press the matter, and insist on some kind of accounting from Dizzy Mike.

#

McCAIN AND HIS LOBBYISTS ON THE WARPATH AGAINST EARMARKS-- AND THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL ESTABLISHMENT

"We love pork, we love pork"

Did you watch that incredible video showing why Bush should be tried as a war criminal? Watch it all the way through. But the spot I was thinking about what where the American soldiers are getting the Iraqi children to chant "I like pork." According to Bob Novak's column this morning, we should edit the Iraqis out and put McConnell and most of the Republican Senate caucus in their place. Novak claims there's going to be a showdown between the pork-addicted caucus and the senators like Claire McCaskill, Barack Obama, Jim DeMint, and Tom Coburn. Because he's running for president the Lobbyist Express is also claiming to be anti-pork, an absurdity.

The congressional Republican establishment, with its charade of pretending to crack down on budget earmarks while in fact preserving its addiction to pork, faces embarrassment this week when the Democratic-designed budget is brought to the Senate floor.

It's hilarious to see McConnell (aka- Miss Obstruction 2007-8) using all the tactics of obstructionism he normally uses to advance the Bush agenda against reform-minded senators from his own party, especially against his own party's presumptive nominee.

The irony could hardly be greater. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, an ardent earmarker, is smart enough politically to realize how unpopular the practice is with the Republican base. Consequently, McConnell combines anti-earmark rhetoric with evasive tactics designed to save pork. But McCain, surely not the presidential candidate McConnell wanted, is pledging that as president he will veto any bill containing earmarks. McConnell, meanwhile, is running for reelection in Kentucky by bragging about the pork he has brought the state.

McConnell has appointed a taskforce to "look into" the matter, a taskforce of corrupt Republicans who have earmarked over a billion dollars in suspect projects. "Lawyer-like, Republican leaders are demanding a definition of an earmark. They could get a good idea by looking at a sample of earmarks recently secured by task force members. Cochran: $475,000 for beaver management in Mississippi. Lugar: $240,000 to rehabilitate the Alhambra Theater in Evansville, Ind. Isakson: $300,000 for Old Fort Jackson in Savannah, Ga. Crapo: $250,000 for the Idaho sage grouse." Ouch. I wonder if McCain will curse any of them out on live TV.

McCain, who has served the interests of his corporate donors as well-- if not better-- than any member of Congress, is campaigning about abolishing earmarks. Sometimes he sounds like he's running against Ted Stevens and Don Young; every speech he gives includes a disparaging mention of the Republican-sponsored "Bridge to Nowhere." His anti-earmarks hypocrisy worries advocates of legitimate scientific study and this morning's Washington Post contrasts the concerns of scientists with the politicization of the process by the notorious demagogue from Arizona.

Chris Dodd on the Bushfolks' "sad pattern" of trying "to convince the public that we must abandon the rule of law to protect" telecom law-breakers

"To suggest that the telecoms are being sued 'only' because they assisted the government after September 11th is disingenuous at best. Companies like AT&T and Verizon find themselves in court today not because they assisted the government by handing over their customers' personal and private information - but because they appear to have broken the law by doing so."
--Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), in a HuffPost response to a NYT op-ed piece today by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell

Senator Dodd's post speaks for itself:

Mike McConnell Is Flat Wrong

Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, has written a misleading op-ed in today's New York Times. Mr. McConnell's piece is a plea for Congress to renew the Protect America Act. I and other Democrats in Congress have been working to correct problems with the law as currently written, so that we can provide our intelligence community with the tools they need to ensure the security of our country needs, while upholding the rule of law that acts as the foundation for that security.

In what has become a sad pattern, Mr. McConnell, like many in this Administration past and present, tries to convince the public that we must abandon the rule of law to protect the telecom industry from being held accountable if they broke any laws. He writes, "[I]t is critical for the intelligence community to have liability protection for private parties that are sued only because they are believed to have assisted us after Sept. 11, 2001."

Mr. McConnell is flat wrong.

To suggest that the telecoms are being sued "only" because they assisted the government after September 11th is disingenuous at best. Companies like AT&T and Verizon find themselves in court today not because they assisted the government by handing over their customers' personal and private information - but because they appear to have broken the law by doing so. The telecoms are being sued because they did not receive a warrant - yet they went ahead and helped the Administration anyway.

This belief that the Administration and anyone who helps them is above the law is on display throughout his NYT piece. Mr. McConnell writes, "Those in the private sector who stand by us in times of national security emergencies deserve thanks, not lawsuits," suggesting these companies acted out of love of country. They may well have - but we can no more project a motive of patriotism onto the telecoms' illegal actions than greed or fear.

Why not? Because the Administration has forbidden the American people from learning exactly what happened when this information was handed over without warrant. That is in part why the continuation of these cases is so important. By granting telecoms retroactive immunity, as Mr. McConnell advocates, and allowing for warrantless surveillance, we would essentially be saying that when it comes to intelligence gathering, there is no need for anyone in any circumstance to follow any law or even the Constitution so long as it is broadly defined as a matter of "national security."

That's ridiculous - and if anything, it puts our national security further at risk.

Clearly, I don't think we should insist on a warrant in order to monitor entirely foreign communications passing through the U.S. - between, say, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Current law already reflects that and should continue to. But in the instances when we are talking about spying on Americans to protect national security--and those instances do exist--we must continue to demand a warrant, as proscribed by the Fourth Amendment and followed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), even if it is issued after-the-fact.

That is why I've placed a hold on any FISA legislation that includes retroactive immunity. No person, company or Administration is above the law - no one. And if my hold is not honored, I will filibuster to stop retroactive immunity from becoming law.

I believe we can't protect our country if we fail to protect our Constitution and the rule of law. It is precisely by upholding our rights that we become safer and more secure at home. The opposite path is fundamentally flawed, inherently dangerous, and, apparently, embraced by our Director of National Intelligence. Given all that this Administration has done to trample our Constitution, it may not be surprising - but it remains disappointing.

#