Today's Rescue Rangers are vcmvo2, PaintyKat, Got a Grip, dopper0189, and shayera, with YatPundit at the controls of the streetcar.

• testvet6778 details some of the personal struggles Post-war veterans experience because of PTSD in order to illuminate the monumental need to provide treatments for our soldiers returning from war in After the Battle, Fighting the Bottle at Home. (PaintyKat)
• Melody Townsel shares the joy of having something precious returned long after it was believed forever lost in Talk about your Independence Days! (Got a Grip)
• 4thepeople relates her personal struggle with cancer, betrayal, and forgiveness in What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding? (vcmvo2)
• Eric Zencey dissects John Locke's theories of property rights and government in coping with a finite planet: takings law and finds they would only work on an infinite planet. (dopper0189)
• Using their own words, Chris Rodda creates an enlightening and amusing conversation between Thomas Jefferson vs. George W. Bush. (Got a Grip)
• dday explains in this link-rich diary Why Working Americans Are Scared. (vcmvo2)
• hekebolos tells Kossacks that The LA Times attacks a candidate on the economy. Guess who? (shayera)
• TocqueDeville highlights why the FISA capitulation would have been Nixon's Wet Dream. (shayera)
• jimstaro reports on and analyzes various sources in order to define A Just Foreign Policy. (vcmvo2)
• A Timetable Twofer: LithiumCola suggests Maliki's demand for an American troop withdrawal timetable might require additional examination on several points to rule out a hidden agenda in Maliki's Timetable Demand: Things to Watch For (PaintyKat), and dday has Some Context On Iraqi Leaders' Call For A Timetable For Withdrawal. (shayera)
• rontun sees a blue political sky in sunny New Hampshire in Red to Purple to Blue! Who knew? (Poll) (Got a Grip)
• Troutfishing brings us a story of how YouTube caved to pressure on the copywriting of political speech inYouTube Censors Videos Exposing Pro-War Propaganda & Hate Speech. (dopper0189)
• NYBri invites all Netroots Nation attending Kossacks to an event in Calling All Candidates. Netroots Nation Celebration....Again. (shayera)

jotter has High Impact diaries, July 7, 2008.

brillig has Top Comments- 7/08/08 One Week To Go Edition.

As always, feel free to join Diary Rescue by suggesting your own choices in the Open Thread.

re: Civics   [Markos Moulitsas Zúniga]

A totally crazy Tuesday-morning thought: Wouldn't George W. Bush make an awesome super hero? Wouldn't it be something if his post-presidential life would up being that kind of post-service service? How's that for a model? Who needs policemen, firemen, and high-end secret service security? How about the Justice League? (Or wherever?) Reach out and touch the young (non-sexually, of course!) before they are hurt or killed by bad guys, and by giving them a hero to root for, he can break them of the cynicism pop culture and possibly their parents have passed down to them. Whatever you think of President Bush, he's a likable guy in love with himself who looks great in an ironman or Batman suit with a monster codpiece.

Like I said, crazy. Tuesday. Have a good one.

(Update: If you don't get this post, read this.)

When you come right down to it, advocacy for the new FISA bill pretty much hinges on the provision that four inspectors general will investigate and report to Congress regularly on the warrantless surveillance programs. The problem which nobody wants to talk about is that the four IGs are not capable of policing these programs.

Inspectors general, contrary to popular belief, are not fully independent. Neither should anyone ever assume that they can uncover the full 'Truth' about any program. There are a range of institutional problems that IGs face. This excellent report from POGO summarizes the issues well. Inspectors General often are a surprisingly (and poorly understood) weak link in governmental oversight. Even when they're at the top of their game, inspectors general have to surmount daunting hurdles.

I spoke to POGO's lead investigator for that report, Beverly Lumpkin, who agrees that it's far from certain that any IG investigations will uncover the information needed to hold the government accountable for warrantless surveillance.

For one thing, as POGO documents, many IGs can be pressured by agency heads in various ways, even to the point of being investigated by the agency they're supposed to keep watch on.

Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden, in perhaps the most astonishing known infringement of an IG’s independence, launched an investigation of the agency’s Inspector General, John Helgerson...it appears the main complaint against the IG was that his subordinates had been too harsh in questioning CIA officers about their activities. The IG had earlier issued highly critical assessments of agency employees’ activities in pursuing terrorists, and it is hard to escape the appearance of retaliation in this launching of a “management review.”

With such tenuous independence, drafts of IG reports frequently go to the agency head for comment and 'correction' before being finalized.

In any case, IGs lack subpoena power. Outside their own agencies, they cannot force anybody to talk to them. In addition (as I'll discuss) their resources are limited and usually stretched to the breaking point. So it's naive to assume that they can in practice get to the bottom of a large issue.

Indeed, an inspector general doesn't know what he doesn't know. With classified programs that have many tentacles, what is the chance that an IG will happen upon somebody who's both able and willing to point to all the things that need to be investigated, and the people who ought ideally to be interviewed? With this massive program, IG investigators will truly be feeling their way in the dark.

The FISA bill presumes in any event that IG staffers will be given the security clearances they need to dig into the government's most closely guarded secrets. This is information that Congress has been denied! And yet George Bush denied the necessary security clearances to staffers at DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility specifically to thwart OPR's investigation of warrantless surveillance. Advocates of the FISA 'reform' bill just assume that cannot happen a second time. After all, we've seen many times with the Bush administration that history does not repeat itself.

Those are the larger problems that confront all inspectors general. In addition, there are specific problems with the four IGs in question (DNI, NSA, DOD, and DOJ). The first two are not statutorily independent. Rather, they're appointed by their own agency. The DNI and NSA IGs cannot and should not be trusted to render a truly independent verdict upon sensitive agency programs. Indeed last July, former DOD IG Eleanor Hill told a Senate Homeland Security hearing that the NSA IG should not be investigating the warrantless wiretapping program (PDF) because of this lack of independence (military IGs acknowledge that they serve "at the pleasure of the Directors of their agencies").

"All of those IGs recongnized that in investigations of very senior officials or in audits of programs dear to the agency head, the statutorily protected independence of the Departmental IG was critical to both the integrity of the inquiry and to the credibility of the findings in the Department, on Capitol Hill, and with the American public. I could not help but recall those conversations when I read reports last year that the oversight of what has been referred to as NSA's "terrorist surveillance program" had been handled by the NSA IG, who has limited resources and no statutory independence, and not by the Department of Defense IG."

So the involvement of the NSA and DNI IGs is not reassuring...if anything, the opposite. Their failure to investigate the programs before the NYT made them public speaks volumes about their credibility as whistleblowers on warrantless surveillance.

The DOD and DOJ IGs have their own problems. To begin with, the DOD OIG does not have its own legal counsel. As POGO's report highlights, the IG is forced to rely on the advice of the Pentagon's Office of General Counsel. With programs as sensitive and legally complex as these, that lack of legal independence is devastating to the DOD IG's ability to render an authoritative verdict. Indeed, the Pentagon Office of General Counsel repeatedly has been involved in exceptionally shady affairs, especially in facilitating Bush's torture regime.

That's the office that will play a major role in framing the legal investigation of the warrantless wiretapping under the current FISA bill. Yes, it ought to shock you.

Furthermore, both DOD and DOJ OIGs have been complaining for years about their lack of resources. No IG can conduct careful investigations of this sort without applying major resources to them. And yet the 2 IGs that do at least have statutory independence cannot meet their offices' current needs. POGO has obtained a new report from DOD IG complaining that its resources are increasingly inadequate to keep on top of current, unclassified Pentagon programs. Indeed, this spring the GAO reported that known DOD problems keep getting worse, despite the IG's best efforts.

Not by chance, DOD Inspector General Claude Kicklighter announced last week he's resigning, though he'd originally promised to stay through the end of the Bush administration. Rumors are swirling in Washington that his reason for leaving early is that his office's profound lack of resources make it nearly impossible to do his job.

DOD OIG has been a huge embarrassment for years, what with one extremely shady IG who resigned in disgrace (Joseph Schmitz), and a nominee to replace him who was utterly unqualified (David Laufman). Now comes news that the man nominated to replace Kicklighter, Gordon Heddell, plans to do the job half time while continuing as IG for the Labor Department. That is some indication of how seriously the current administration treats the critical Office of Inspector General of the Pentagon; there ought to be half a dozen IGs at DOD, perhaps, whereas Bush & Co. are giving us one half of one.

From time to time I've had occasion to investigate the activities of federal inspectors general. Although I admire the work of some of these watchdogs, I've lost any illusions about what they're able to achieve within their institutional and fiscal restraints. That's one of the reasons why I find the FISA bill's dependence on IG investigations ridiculous, and Congressional advocates of it naive. No doubt they'd say the same of me. But I'm not the one who wants to suspend the Fourth Amendment over an abyss by the thin strand of an IG report.

Today:

WASHINGTON—Former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher say the next time the president goes to war, Congress should be required to say whether it agrees. The co-chairmen of a bipartisan study group have proposed legislation that would require the president to consult lawmakers before initiating combat lasting longer than a week, except in cases of emergencies.

1787:

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power ...

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Update: I added emphasis to draw attention to the absurdity.

This is, as Markos would say, hilarious:

Sen. John McCain's plans are gradually unfolding for the Republican National Convention in September as he tries to walk a tightrope between conflicting demands.

First is the question of how to give President Bush a forum as the party's two-time nominee but at the same time keep McCain at a distance from the unpopular incumbent. The answer, according to McCain aides, will be to have Bush give a speech on the first night of the convention—a Monday—and let him have the moment to himself. McCain isn't scheduled to arrive in Minneapolis-St. Paul, the convention site, until Tuesday at the earliest, after Bush leaves, which means that, at this point, the two men won't be seen with each other that week.

Can't you just picture the unnamed McCain aides selling Bush on this plan?

"Really, Mr. President. You're so important, so magnificent, so ... historical, you really shouldn't have to share a stage with anyone. Why, the nominee would be so overshadowed by your presence, he might as well not even be in the same building as you. In fact, we're going to make sure he's not even in the same city ... just so you have this wonderful moment all to yourself. Completely alone in all your incumbent glory.

"Rest assured, Mr. McCain wouldn't want to intrude on your final partisan bow in any way ....."

Congress and the traditional media in the US have a magnificent blindspot where the worst CIA operations are concerned. Regarding George Bush's torture regime, his policy of cruelty, they've given us long periods of silence interspersed with blinkered or faux-naive commentary. So, sure, we've heard from them occasionally about the legal battles regarding Guantanamo prison, the erased videotapes, waterboarding, and somewhat more vaguely about "aggressive" interrogation techniques. But they've scarcely ever remarked about the broader context in which that's going on: Bush's worldwide spiderweb of secret prisons, of which Gitmo is just a small part; the purchase of masses of prisoners; the meagerness of evidence; the 'renditions'; the disregard of human rights; the absence of accountabililty.

Above all, we rarely hear anything from Congress or the media about how the Bush administration has instituted a systematic regimen to degrade the psychological state of terrorist suspects in order to instill pain, fear, emotional suffering, and childlike dependency. The government even has a name for the regimen of abuse, "exploitation", not that the public has been made aware of it however.

It's partly a testament to a network of bloggers, such as DK diarist Valtin, that truly salient information about the development of the Bush administration's policy of cruelty ever gets out beyond a small circle of human rights groups and lawyers for the prisoners. In what follows, I'll discuss some issues already raised in this recommended diary by Valtin.

Last week Scott Shane of the NYT highlighted evidence that the prisoner "management techniques" at Guantanamo were closely modeled on the abusive conditions imposed on American POWs during the Korean War. That could well be news to readers of the Times, which would be a scandal in itself. Certainly the June 17 Senate Armed Services Committee hearings and media coverage might have given the impression that the Bush administration's reverse-engineering of SERE techniques, for application at Gitmo and elsewhere, was uncovered only in 2008. In fact, however, it was clear at least 3 years ago that the abusive techniques were modeled on SERE training.

Neither is it a secret that the SERE program arose in the wake of the Korean War, as the military and CIA studied how North Korean and Chinese captors manipulated the minds of American POWs to extract confessions without leaving physical marks of torture. On the CIA side, that research led to the experimental MK-ULTRA program, the KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual of 1963, and much clandestine training in torture (for example at the School of the Americas). On the Pentagon side, it led to the creation of the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) program to give military personnel some experience in the kind of coercive system of "exploitation" they might face if captured by an authoritarian regime.

The Bush administration turned to the SERE experts on psychological coercion to generate a clean system for the cruel treatment of prisoners. It relies heavily on such things as prolonged isolation, sensory disruption, sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, humiliation, degradation, exploiting phobias, and intimidation as well as markless physical tortures to erode the prisoners' mental state and induce a child-like sense of dependency. It's all very unpleasant, and exceedingly clear - for any who wish to see what the Bush administration has been doing.

That's not to say Scott Shane's article doesn't contain important information. He draws attention (without crediting Valtin, who first pointed this out last month) to a Cold-War document used by the SERE instructors when they gave a class on "exploitation" at Guantanamo in 2002. It's a Chart of Coercion released by SASC in June (p. 51 of the PDF). The chart is nearly identical to one first published in Albert Biderman's 1957 Air Force study of communist interrogation techniques (PDF). That information came as a revelation, according to Shane.

[Senate Armed Services Committee] investigators were not aware of the chart’s source in the half-century-old journal article, a connection pointed out to The New York Times by an independent expert on interrogation who spoke on condition of anonymity...

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after reviewing the 1957 article that "every American would be shocked" by the origin of the training document.

So where exactly did SASC investigators suppose SERE got this system of "exploitation" from, the tooth fairy? The chart in question was attached to a description of "'physical pressures' training" done by SERE instructors for Guantanamo personnel in Dec. 2002 (p. 48 of SASC docs):

"Mr. Ross and I initiated training with an in-depth class on Biderman's Principles".

Indeed, the chart has a header: "Biderman's Chart of Coercion". How hard was it to Google that?

So I remain skeptical that the Congress did not know until last week that George Bush's policy of cruelty was modeled on the torture inflicted on American POWs during the Korean War.

Why does it matter? Here is Shane again:

Some [Biderman] methods were used against a small number of prisoners at Guantánamo before 2005, when Congress banned the use of coercion by the military. The C.I.A. is still authorized by President Bush to use a number of secret "alternative" interrogation methods.

This false reassurance forms the rotten core of the Bush administration's attempt at public rehabilitation. Even while they falsely continue to assert that it was the commanders at Gitmo who asked permission to use abusive techniques, Bush & Co. wants you to believe they've put a stop to them. Yet psychological degradation remains the foundation of the systematic "exploitation" of prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere. What is the continued isolation of prisoners about, then, if not the degredation of their mental faculties? Congress has tried to limit the more egregious types of torture, but has done nothing to address the underlying, systematic principles of "exploitation".

And for what it is worth, as Valtin and I and many others have described, the techniques studied by Biderman were inherited rather than invented by totalitarian regimes. Biderman himself says so. 'Clean' torture has a long history in western democracies. It was particularly favored by European colonial forces who didn't wish to leave physical marks of torture on prisoners who might be brought into court.

...the style of torture American forces used in Iraq and Afghanistan derived from two venerable traditions of torture, French modern and Anglo-Saxon modern.

We're supposed to believe that the well-documented history of torture is unknown to members of Congress and their staffs who are investigating allegations of torture? That's a truly magnificent blind spot.

The histories people tell can be revealing. Sen. Levin produced for the SASC hearings a detailed history of how the Bush administration reverse-engineered SERE techniques. It concentrates on the period beginning in July 2002, when the head of the Air Force SERE program, Col. Daniel Baumgartner, was asked (via JPRA) to describe the SERE methods to the head of the DoD Office of General Counsel (OGC), Richard Shiffrin.

Levin's tale contradicts the Bush adminstration on key issues, particularly their ridiculous claim that the "exploitation" techniques were proposed by interrogators at Gitmo, without any prompting from Bush & Co. Not surprising that SASC found otherwise. Philippe Sands' book had already shown that the proposals were the handiwork of Bush's made-men, including Wm. Haynes, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, John Rizzo, and Michael Chertoff.

But Levin's story coheres to the Bush narrative overall in identifying the summer and fall of 2002 as the period in which "aggressive" techniques were formulated out of frustration with the lack of results from interrogations at Gitmo. By that stage, the Bushies famously had put into place an essential framework of legal advice that advocated for torture.

The problem with that story is that it falls afoul of facts. As Valtin pointed out, Col. Baumgartner let the cat out of the bag in his prepared remarks (PDF) to the SASC hearing.

My recollection of my first communication with OGC relative to techniques was with Mr. Richard Shiffrin in July 2002. However, during my two interviews with Committee staff members last year I was shown documents that indicated I had some communication with Mr. Shiffrin related to this matter in approximately December 2001. Although I do not specifically recall Mr. Shiffrin’s request to the JPRA for information in late 2001, my previous interviews with Committee staff members and review of documents connected with Mr. Shiffrin’s December 2001 request have confirmed to me the JPRA, at that time, provided Mr. Shiffrin information related to this Committee’s inquiry. From what I reviewed last year with Committee staff members, the information involved the exploitation process and historical information on captivity and lessons learned.

That puts matters in another light, doesn't it? The queries about SERE methods actually began in 2001, half a year before the July 2002 contacts that Levin's SASC history concentrates on. Thus, the Bush administration was looking into how to reverse-engineer SERE's "exploitation" techniques before most of the needed legal advice was in place to 'justify' using torture. The documents Baumgartner mentions weren't released by SASC, however, and if memory serves me nobody at the hearing wanted to talk about the 2001 contact(s) he referenced in his opening statement.

It looks to me like Baumgartner had been caught out by SASC staffers in presenting a very selective history of his involvement, and in his public testimony he sought to convince the Senators that his memory was faulty. They, however, very pointedly were not interested in exploring that most critical of issues.

For who knows how far an investigation would proceed if it began by exposing evidence that the Bush administration had violated the laws and conventions on torture and abuse before putting in place legal underpinnings declaring that stuff to be legal? That's the stuff of articles of impeachment.

I'd like to know when the Senate Armed Services Committee will release the documents showing that the top Pentagon lawyer was asking in December, 2001 for information about "exploiting" prisoners.

It's about time we stopped pretending along with Bush & Co. that this torture regimen began no earlier than late 2002 as a result of circumstances at and particular to Guantanamo. We know that is false.

The chief legal counsel at Guantanamo admitted in Oct. 2002 that sleep deprivation was already in use at Bagram air base. That is months before, we're told, the SERE system of coercion was introduced at Gitmo.

And long before they were dragged off to the newly opened prison at Guantanamo, many prisoners were treated to the full "exploitation process" at Bagram and elsewhere. The transport flights from Bagram to Gitmo, with their hoods and sensory deprivation and painful stress positions, were full bore Biderman coercion. In Dec. 2002 John Walker Lindh was abused in some similar ways. Furthermore just a "few weeks" after 9/11, German agents at Tulza air base (Bosnia) documented ongoing abuse of terrorist suspects by the US military. They refused to assist in such illegal interrogations.

As far as we know, none of the US officials who ordered or participated in abusing prisoners in late 2001 and early 2002 have ever been punished. That, too, ought to be a concern to Congress and the US media.

If only it weren't for that magnificent blind spot.

This is going to be a bloody, nasty, wildly expensive race, and every single dollar is going to count.

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and business consultant Dan Seals (D) are gearing up for the most expensive House race in the Chicago area this cycle — and it may turn into the most expensive race in the country that doesn’t involve a self-funder.

Even before the DCCC and NRCC get involved here, the fundraising numbers are already through the roof. Seals raised $635,000 last quarter and has over $1.1 million on hand. Kirk, for his part, pulled in over $900K, and has $2.85 million on hand right now.

Both candidates have more money at this point than they did in their 2006 match, when Kirk bested Seals 53 percent to 47 percent. The Congressman spent more than $3.5 million in the previous cycle, compared with almost $1.9 million for Seals. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chipped in a mere $158,000, while the National Republican Congressional Committee sat the race out.

That election was overshadowed by very competitive and extremely expensive races in the neighboring 6th and 8th districts. But this year, the Kirk-Seals matchup will be the main event.

Rest assured that the NRCC will not be sitting this race out, and that the DCCC should be chipping in quite a bit more money.

Kirk's narrow victory in 2006, coupled with his fundraising prowess, make him a genuinely formidable opponent for Seals. Make no mistake, even in Illinois, we can't rely on "Obama coattails" to take this seat, although they will certainly help.

Dan Seals is an excellent progressive candidate, and he's got a real shot of winning. But it's going to take all the effort we can muster to help make that happen.

On the web:

Dan Seals for Congress
Orange to Blue ActBlue Page

Race tracker wiki: IL-10

Via TPM, John McCain imagining recession:

Jibber jabber this thread wide open, folks!

These are the people with perhaps the most important voices of all on the issue. They put their professional lives and reputations on the line, one more than thirty years ago, two during this administration. They were and are in a position unique in this debate--they saw up close what the government is capable of doing in secret and against the will of the Congress and the people.

Perhaps the most famous whistleblower of all, former intelligence officer Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower who in the early 1970s released the Pentagon Papers, has come out strongly against this FISA bill. He spoke with Tim Ferris of BoingBoing Gadgets about this legislation, the danger it poses, and what we should do about it.

On Tuesday [ed. note, the votes will be Wednesday], a bill will come up that changes, basically really rips apart without admitting it, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, by expanding the president's ability to overhear, without a warrant, without any judgment outside the executive branch being exercised, American citizens in the United State, thus gutting the Fourth Amendment, essentially. And also granting retroactive immunity to the telephone companies who obeyed the illegal presidential request to carry on an illegal program these last seven years....

Now the real importance of that last point, which is clearly unconstitutional and which many people, Senator Dodd and Senator Feingold and over the last year, until fairly recently Senator Barack Obama had promised to filibuster any bill that gave that immunity. And the reason for that was not a desire to punish anybody, actually, but because the civil suit possibility for people whose rights had been violated by this illegal overhearing gave the only real chance of finding out what it was that  NSA was hearing, and the FBI or CIA or whoever else was involved. Congress doesn't yet know that. In fact, if they vote for that immunity, they'll be voting immunity for acts they really don't even know what their giving. Like President Ford's pardon of former President Nixon after he resigned which was for any crimes he may have committed which Ford, in the absence of a prosecution of Nixon, didn't really know what he was pardoning.

So the same would be true here, meaning we would be giving away the only chance we have of discovering how much the government is spying on us illegally and finding out about law-abiding citizens. The people who leaked that I think did it because they knew what was happening and they felt it was wrong, it shouldn't be happening. They haven't told us yet, they haven't risked their jobs to that extent, to tell us either who exactly has been order, how many, for what purposes, and what exactly they've been overhearing and what use is made of it....

This information would enable the government to intimidate or blackmail or manipulate every member of congress, every official who might be tempted to reveal criminality, people like the ones in the NSA who knew that criminal action was--and is--going on. This law is intended to legalize it, basically, and to continue the cover up, conceal it.

You can't have a democracy with the state--the executive branch--having that kind of information, total information about every communication, every credit card, every transaction, every fax, e-mail, telephone conversation of everyone. And as far as we know, that's what's being collected now. We do need to know whether that's yet true or not, but I think it's a pretty good assumption.... You can't keep a republic, a constitutional republic with that degree of knowledge by the president, by the executive branch of all of our private affairs. You can't have it. You have something else, you have you can call it an autocracy, a dictatorship. It's the basis for tyranny, and that's what the Constitution was meant to prevent and that's what this bill would confer--unlimited power....

I have to say that no senator, Republican or Democrat, should be voting for this Senate bill. Not one. Everyone who does so is in fact, I would say, violating his or her oath to defend the Constitution. But they can do better than that.

Ellsberg, one of the more than 21,500 members of the myBarackObama group that has urged the Senator to oppose this bill, is pushing for us to do the same, to call our Senators.

Two of the Bush-era whistleblowers join in his call. Mark Klein, the retired AT&T engineer who stepped forward with the technical documents at the heart of the anti-wiretapping case against AT&T, and Babak Pasdar, who leaked information that a major telecommunications carrier provided the government with access to its entire mobile network, weigh in today.

President Bush, despite receiving all the changes he demanded, proceeded that very same month to begin eavesdropping on Americans in violation of the retooled and updated FISA law. Once caught, he tried to excuse his conduct by claiming that FISA was somehow inadequate, and he has been aggressively pushing for amnesty for the phone companies who were co-conspirators in his illegal program. This newest proposed change to FISA will provide telecom amnesty, which will ultimately protect not only the phone companies, but the president himself, by dismissing the lawsuits against the companies.

We can testify firsthand to the blatant violations, because we were the whistle blowers who exposed the egregious wrongdoing that has occurred. Our disclosures included how AT&T cooperated with the NSA to install monitoring hardware to spy on the entire Internet, and how a major telecommunications carrier allowed for federal government access to its entire mobile network - without security controls or record keeping. These security breaches represented an unprecedented expansion of government surveillance of the population....

The Senate is set to give the final approval for amnesty and expanded spying tomorrow, so this is the last chance to turn it back. We urge that amnesty be denied. What information did the telecoms share with the administration? How was this information shared? Is it continuing today? We need answers to these questions.

To this day, the American people do not know the full extent of the telecom actions in warrantless wiretapping, and if amnesty passes, we may never know. Allowing this administration and these corporations to get away with this illegal and unconstitutional behavior sets the worst type of precedent for future American generations.

They will pass this terrible legislation, but not it cannot happen with our complicity. We'll lose, but we'll lose by putting them all on notice that we expect them to use a greater majority in Congress next year, and a Democratic presidency, to repeal this travesty and to finally reveal all that information they are working so hard now to cover up. The vote might be over tomorrow, but this issue will not go away.

Call your Senators and remind them that we'll be watching and that we'll remember. Additionally, call the 29 Senators who voted against the Senate bill the last time it came up--along with Obama and Clinton who did not vote--and tell them to vote for the Bingaman amendment, but if it does not pass to vote against final passage.

These are the 30 Senators and the potential president who can hold firm now and lead the charge to fix this next year. Holding them to their previous vote now is critical to making those improvements in the next Congress. The list is below the fold.

The story of how the White House refused to read email from the EPA that included a report on climate change might be the most hilariously tragic incident of the last seven years.  Of course, the EPA -- rather than do anything so drastic as deliver the report by courier -- revised it to avoid the non-winger spam filter at the White House.  Which makes the story simply tragic.

As it turns out, it wasn't just their eyes that the Bush administration was covering.  Dick Cheney was making sure that the royal ears were protected as well.

Members of Vice President's Dick Cheney's staff censored congressional testimony by a top federal official on the health threats posed by global warming, a former Environmental Protection Agency official said today.

In a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, former EPA deputy associate administrator Jason K. Burnett said an official from Cheney's office edited out six pages from the testimony of Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, last October.

The White House insists that it's common to go over testimony, and that there's "nothing nefarious" going on here.  Naturally.

What could be nefarious about excising scientific facts and covering up threats to public health?

NM-Sen: Tom Udall raised $2.1 million in Q2.

No word yet on how much Steve Pearce raised, but I will say that between Udall's fundraising prowess, and his jaw-dropping polling leads, his campaign is looking more and more Warneresque every day.

Here's Udall's newest campaign ad:

KS-Sen: The local media, it appears, is taking Jim Slattery's campaign quite seriously, even floating the idea that Slattery could actually be Kansas' first Democratic Senator in John McCain's lifetime.

Kansas hasn’t elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate since the Great Depression.

Through 13 presidents and five wars, Republicans have held its two seats for 76 unbroken years — the longest streak in the nation.

But today’s political climate could weaken their grip.

"The Republican brand is really bad in many parts of the country, with Kansas being better than many, but still not good," said Scott Bensing, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "It’s not a top-tier race, but it’s one of those where, should Democrats come into a bunch of money, it’d be a race."

Democrats actually do have a bunch of money (at least, the DSCC certainly does). This is not a top-tier race right now, but it's instructive that even Republican operatives acknowledge the potential this has to be a solid flanking race, perhaps even an upset.

AK-Sen: Orange to Blue candidate Mark Begich is going up on the air, with a 60-second biographical ad and a 30-second ad on energy issues.

Here's the bio ad:

Note that Begich references transparency in finances, and "special favors for elected officials", without actually mentioning Ted Stevens' name. Nicely done.

TX-Sen: The Hill comments that despite a huge cash advantage, and sitting in a state that has been bright red of late, Big Bad John is actually vulnerable.

The Texas senator’s support has dipped below 50 percent in the most recent Rasmussen poll. Cornyn also lost an important ally last month when the Texas Medical Association rescinded its endorsement as punishment for his vote on Medicare legislation.

To be sure, Cornyn is not expected to lose his seat to state Rep. Rick Noriega (D). He’s a Republican from a red state, with double-digit polling leads and a wide fundraising advantage.

Yet Cornyn acknowledges winning a second term won’t be easy.

It's going to be awfully tough to beat Cornyn this cycle, as Rick Noriega's fundraising numbers have not been strong. But I'm pleased to see that Cornyn is at least a little concerned.

House Races

NC-08: Per the latest Public Policy Polling poll, Republican Robin Hayes leads Democrat Larry Kissell by seven points:

Weak reelect numbers for Hayes, as he's seven points under the magic 50% mark.

Fully 48% of the district has no opinion of Kissell. In addition, Kissell draws support, in this poll, from just 55% of black voters, a number we'd certainly expect to go up.

GA-12: With one week left until primary day in Georgia's 12th District, State Sen. Regina Thomas has raised a meager $45K in her challenge to incumbent Rep. John Barrow.

That being the case, Thomas is no doubt banking on a heavy black turnout (the district is 45% African-American) to unseat Barrow. Barrow, however, has been touting his support from Barack Obama, in order to try and neutralize this factor:

Barrow’s campaign has made much of Obama’s endorsement, and last month Obama cut a radio ad for the sophomore Congressman who endorsed his presidential primary bid back in February.

The reason for Barrow’s enthusiasm for Obama almost certainly has to do with the fact that 45 percent of his district is black, which means that half the primary electorate could be black. But it probably also means that the Congressman, who came fewer than 1,000 votes away from losing his seat to a Republican in 2006, believes his tougher challenge this cycle lies in the July 15 Democratic primary rather than the November general election.

Obama's support for the second-term Blue Dog is interesting, and a major coup for Barrow.  I hope that when he is in the Oval Office, Barrow and the other Blue Dogs will remember that he had their back when they needed it.

NY-25: Orange to Blue candidate Dan Maffei is pulling in plenty of cash, nearly $500K in Q2, and now sits on nearly a million dollars.

Maffei spent $918,000 on his losing effort in 2006, compared to more than $1.7 million for Walsh. This cycle, Maffei has already raised $1.3 million.

The leading Republican candidate in the Syracuse-area 25th district, former Onondaga Legislature Chairman Dale Sweetland, was not prepared to release his latest fundraising figures on Monday. This will be the first quarter that Sweetland has submitted an FEC report.

Unless Sweetland had a mammoth first quarter, he's in big, deep, wide, cavernous trouble.

NV-03: Jon Ralston reports (via Political Wire) that Dems have an increasing registration advantage in NV-03, which spells trouble fo Rep. Jon Porter.

"The Democrats now have a 55,560-voter lead over the Republicans in a state that was dead even a presidential cycle ago. But the numbers in NV-3 should be the most worrisome to the GOP, as Democrats now have a nearly 24,000-voter lead in a district that was even only two years ago. The slow-but-sure Democratic spread in that district means that Rep. Jon Porter will have to run a kitchen sink campaign against state Sen. Dina Titus to survive and will have to do so flawlessly, too."

LA-01: Well, the Democratic Party has quite nearly succeeded in fielding a credible candidate in all of Louisiana's districts, even the blood-red, R+18.1, Bush-got-71% LA-01.

Meet Jim Harlan, the Democratic challenger to freshman Steve Scalise.

"Pro-life, pro-gun, fiscally conservative" Democrat Jim Harlan announced his candidacy for Congress on YouTube on Independence Day, bringing a self-funding challenger to recently elected Republican Rep. Steve Scalise this fall.

Harlan, who was a registered independent until February, attended the Democratic Convention earlier this year for the district’s special election in March and decided to get involved.

Is he serious? Well, he's already committed to putting over $500,000 of his own money into the race:

Harlan made his money, according to Coon, building up factories across the country and internationally for a wide variety of technologies and businesses. He will report more than $500,000 to the Federal Elections Commission later this month, which is more than what incumbent Scalise reported in the first quarter.

The $500,000 is mostly Harlan’s personal wealth, Coon said, "but he hasn’t begun to raise the money he can."

Well, that sounds pretty serious to me. In addition, Harlan has already raised $70,000, over half of what the last candidate for this seat, Dr. Gilda Reed, raised for her special-election race against Scalise.

We can thank Dr. Reed, however, for draining Scalise's coffers; as of April 13 he had $126K in the bank (having raised and spent over a million dollars on the race), meaning he may actually start off in the whole against Harlan.

That doesn't mean Harlan can win here. Kerry got 28% in 2004, and Reed got 22.5% (to Scalise's 75%) in the April special election. Still, given the obviously decent resources of the Harlan campaign, there's every reason to expect a significant improvement in Democratic performance here.

At the very least, Scalise will have to raise and spend his own money to win his own race, rather than funnelling it to the cash-strapped NRCC.

Harlan should be the strongest candidate we've had in this district in recent memory, and his entry speaks to a shocking and thrilling revitalization in the Louisiana Democratic Party.

Many had abandoned hope for Democratic politics in the state after Hurricane Katrina, but since then, we have not only held a very strongly Republican seat in the Third District (Charlie Melancon's), but we have taken a solid Republican seat in the Sixth District (Don Cazayoux's), and are fielding serious candidates in the First District, Fourth District (where Paul Carmouche is running in an open-seat race), and Seventh District (where Don Cravins, Jr. will be taking on Charles Boustany).

If we can get a solid candidate against Rodney "Traitor" Alexander in the Fifth District, it will be a beautiful clean sweep in Louisiana.

On the web:

Orange to Blue ActBlue Page

Jay Rockefeller, on the Senate floor, speaking in opposition to the Bingaman amendment:

Mr. President, Senator Bingaman, who I greatly respect in all ways, has offered an amendment altering the liability protections of Title II. That's it. His amendment would postpone the implementation of the liability protections until after 90 days [after] the submission of the final report of the Inspectors General required under Title II. Now, I appreciate the Senator's desire to have more information out there, but I want the Senate as a whole to contemplate what we're asking here. We're talking about a year for the Inspectors General to complete their report. Well, you know, does it really work that way? Is it really a flat year? Are we going to send out federal marshals to have them all do their reports on the exact day? It'll probably stretch a little bit. Maybe it won't, maybe it will. But you can't assume it won't. And you've got to add on 90 days. And then you could get to the question of the immunity.

Uh, hey, good question, Senator! What will the Congress do if the Inspectors General don't complete their report on time? Or complete it at all? Or even start it?

Send out federal marshals? Ha ha! Yeah! Ha... oh, wait. That's actually a serious problem. What if the Inspectors General don't do the report?

Seriously. What if they just don't?

Why would they? What are you gonna do? Cut their budget so they will have even less chance of doing it? Pass a law saying the law saying they have to do the report is "exclusive?" Subpoena them? Hold them in contempt? Impeach the president?

So Rockefeller opposes the Bingaman amendment because the Congress has no way to make sure the IGs will finish on time, or finish at all.

What a damn moron.

How do all the people who feel certain the bill ensures "accountability" like that one?

• Rasmussen: voters perceive Obama moving to the middle. The danger of Obama's recent calculating moves isn't even that he might be moving to the "middle". It's that he's now acting like every other politician. For those who thought he was something "new" and "different", fact is, he's behaving like every other politician before him.

  Beside that, now that Obama is seen as "less liberal", that should improve his poll numbers, right? Wrong.

  So, now that Obama is perceived as moving to the center, while McCain is still perceived as conservative, Obama's poll numbers should improve, right? Wrong. According to the daily tracking poll from the same polling firm, Rasmussen, the campaign has not changed at all as a result of Obama being perceived as less liberal:

  • Obama has been at 49% every single day since June 22nd
  • Obama has been at 48%, 49% or 50% every single day since June 8th
  • Obama has led by between 4-6% every day since June 23rd, and in all but three days since June 11th. In the other three days, he twice led by 3%, and once led by 7%.

  Poll movement of this small degree is not really movement at all, but rather "statistical noise." So, while there has been substantial movement in how liberal Obama is perceived as being, and even though McCain is viewed just as conservative as ever, there has been no movement whatsoever in the national matchup. This is very strong proof, even scientific, that Obama's move to the center has not won him any votes, and that the perceived change in the ideological gap between Obama and McCain did not impact their relative vote share.

  Or maybe not, as Josh Orton argues:

  As much as I'd like to believe that Obama's recent triangulation hasn't been effective, I'm just not sure these numbers prove it. As we've looked at before, the strategy for Obama is a multi-state/multi-path tour to the nomination. Exactly which blocs of voters are we talking about? In which states? [...]

  Point being, I guarantee that the Obama campaign doesn't gauge the success or failure of messaging by the rise and fall of top-line national tracking polls - this is a state-by-state, constituency-by-constituency race.

  Poblano also disagrees. Me, I think Obama was fine before his capitulation on FISA, and that his mainstream Democratic positions were mainstream American positions. I also think Obama is talented enough that he could've sold his mainstream politics to the American people.

  This debate is almost academic. If Obama improves, is it because Obama is "moving to the center", or because people are tuning in and preferring him to McCain? Is it because Jeremiah Wright is a distant memory almost forgotten by everyone? Is it because gas prices are going up and jobs keep getting lost?

  There's no way to quantify the reason Obama goes up and down, and I doubt the majority of people follow each policy pronouncement for where it sits in the "middle". Like I said, Obama was already in the middle. All his maneuverings at this point are merely political (avoiding attack ads), rather than ideological.

• Headline:

  Bush administration is protecting privacy and constitutional rights -- of tomatoes

• So McCain claims that he'll balance the budget in his first term, yet offers no numbers or evidence to back up his fantastical claim? Why isn't he being laughed off the stage?

  So what are the numbers behind that? We just asked the McCain campaign and the response we got was ...

  It's pretty straightforward, as we win, costs will go down with a smaller footprint over time, and those savings will go to deficit reduction. It's really the logical extension of Senator McCain's position as articulated in the 2013 speech. Achieving success in Iraq would obviously lead to reduced expenditures on the effort.

  This is what's behind McCain's promise. I'll do a lot of things that will get the deficit down. One of them is the the guarantee of victories in Iraq and Afghanistan and obviously that will save a lot of money.

• It's impossible to spoof this.
• Exactly like slavery.
• Yeah, there's not much to be happy about with this Congress.
• Incompetence at FEMA? Nope, Holy Joe doesn't care. It might make his BFF Bush look bad!
• A great start to the Tour de France this year. Catch the play by play over at Podium Cafe. My own bikes (road and mountain) have been getting extra work these last few weeks. Every year, I get a huge motivational boost around this time of year, for obvious reasons.

In 2004, Bush beat Kerry in Nevada by three points:

At the time, Republicans held a one-point advantage in voter registration in the state. Today, Democrats have opened up a 5-point advantage, and it's growing.

According to the secretary of state's office, 55,560 more Democrats than Republicans are on the active voter rolls in Nevada, as of the end of June. The gap widened from 50,020 in May and represents 5 percent of the 1,031,984 active voters [...]

"That's a 6-point shift in just one presidential cycle," [Kirsten Searer, deputy executive director of the Nevada Democratic Party] said. "I think it's fair to say this is a trend at this point. It's very good news for Democrats up and down the ballot, from Assembly and Senate all the way to Congress."

Simple math shows that this 55,560-vote advantage is much larger than the difference in the popular vote in 2004. All things being equal, McCain would be in trouble. But, of course, all things aren't equal this year, and increased Democratic voter registration is yet another obstacle the GOP must face in what has become an impossible year for them.

Just consider what his proposed presidency would look like:

All of this intrigue breeds discouragement among even those former McCain associates who do not dispute the notion that voters now might be getting an early glimpse of the messy, unstructured way in which a McCain White House might be managed. They are hard-pressed to explain why Mr. McCain tolerates this — or encourages this — or why he has trouble cutting ties with people who have not served him well over the years.

"I can’t answer the why," said John Weaver, who was one of Mr. McCain’s closest advisers before being forced out in a shake-up last year. "It is just that way and for his own sake, he needs to finally, firmly decide where he wants to take this campaign."

No one, apparently, will be officially in charge (or officially responsible) for anything in a McCain administration, if the campaign is any indication:

It seems none of the competing advisers working on Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign can actually agree who is in charge.

This morning on Fox News, McCain denied that Steve Schmidt now runs his campaign -- despite his recent promotion -- saying "Rick Davis is still the guy in charge." He added that Schmidt has simply "taken on some more responsibilities."

Meanwhile, the New Republic reports the McCain campaign is "pushing back" on informed speculation that GOP consultant Mike Murphy would soon join the campaign -- even though McCain reportedly offered him the top strategist job last week.

(Semi-latest word from The Caucus is that Murphy's out, but who knows what the next hour will bring.)

Ah, yes. Cronyism, lobbyists moving in and out of the campaign, turf wars, mixed messages on every conceivable issue and/or strategy, muddled policy, no clear-cut responsibility or oversight ... what's not to love about the third Bush term?

Daily Kos is throwing a "grand ol' party" during Netroots Nation for our dedicated readers.  If you are attending the Netroots Nation convention, you are cordially invited to the Daily Kos party on Friday, July 18th.  

(Click on image to see full size.)

How can you get in the party?  Simply meet us in the lobby of the Austin Hilton at 8:30pm on Friday, July 18th (with your Netroots Nation credential) and join the big orange parade over to Maggie Mae's on Sixth Street. Space will be limited, so don't be late!

You're going to hear a lot today about how much the FISA Amendments Act have been improved from the last iteration coming from the Senate. That will be the cover for those who vote for this bill, even with Title II--the immunity provision--included.

But, about those "improvements," here's Kit Bond:

We believe that this new bill that we're considering, H.R. 6304, which passed the house with a strong majority vote of 293-129 last friday, should be passed here. As with the senate's original FISA bill passed several months ago, the compromise that is before us required a little give-and-take from all sides. But in essence what we have before us today is basically the Senate bill all over again.

I am aware of those that some on the far left want to paint this as some radical new legislation. But if you read the language, it's not different. the press picked up on this trait last week and kept asking me to help them find the purported big changes that no one could find. There really is not much that is significantly different, save some cosmetic fixes that were requested by the majority party in the house.

There's a potential fix to this bill, Bingaman's amendment that would delay the immunity until an IG's report is completed. That's the amendment that Mike and Mike say is poison pill that will result in a Bush veto. Because this amendment is subjected to a 60 vote rule, the chance that it will be passed is slim.

Thus, the final bill that Senate votes on tomorrow will probably be "basically the Senate bill all over again." The 29 Senators who voted against that Senate bill that has only received "cosmetic" fixes should vote against it again, and be joined by their colleagues Clinton and Obama, who didn't vote on it, in voting "no" on the final bill if that Bingaman amendment doesn't pass.

Does anyone really want a President McCain to have the expanded surveillance powers this bill confers? Or even a President Obama? Do these Democrats want to be responsible for dramatically weakening both their and the courts' power vis-a-vis the executive? That's what they're about to do.

Call them and tell them to vote for the Bingaman amendment and vote against final passage of the bill if Bingaman doesn't pass.