Before I met with Senator Bill Frist earlier today, I took a few minutes to call the offices of the few remaining Senators who had not gone on the record regarding the hold on S. 2590. TPM Muckraker has been keeping track of the score, and now Hot Air reports that we’re down to the Final Three.
When I checked the list at TPMM, I noted three Republicans whose lack of response puzzled me — well, two of them, anyway. Jon Kyl has been a consistent voice for fiscal responsibility, so I took out the cell phone and called his offices in DC. The friendly staffer who answered told me unequivocally that Kyl did not place the hold on S2590, and in fact supported the bill. I asked twice just to be sure he knew this for a fact, and received strong assurances both times.
Next I called Pete Domenici’s office, and got a slightly different reaction. The polite but somewhat confused staffer had to check with others in the office — apparently, mine was the first call she had taken on the subject. Her colleagues told her that Domenici didn’t hold the bill, but none of them were willing to state that he supported it.
I sent these reactions to TPMM and set my sights on the white whale: Ted Stevens.
When I called Stevens’ office, the staffer who answered was quite friendly — almost overly so. His reaction to my question was … not to answer it. “We’ve gotten that question a lot this week,” he said, and then tried to get me to submit the question via their Senate website. Instead, I asked for a press liaison, and he transferred me to the voice mail of Aaron Saunders — whose outbound message stated that he would be out of town until Friday. However, he left his e-mail on the message with the recommendation that it was the best way to contact him, so I sent him an e-mail asking him to confirm or deny that Stevens had placed the hold on S. 2590. Almost as an afterthought, I marked it for a return receipt.
Aaron Saunders read my e-mail at 11:56 am ET today. So far, he has not responded … which might be an answer in and of itself. I’ll keep you posted.
Month: August 2006
CQ On The Air Tonight
I’ll be joining Rob Breckenridge on CHQR’s The World Tonight, the excellent evening radio talk show out of Calgary. My segment starts at 9 pm CT after the newsbreak, and we will discuss the Plame flame-out, and perhaps other topics as well. Be sure to listen on the Internet stream if you do not live in Calgary; Rob makes these appearances a lot of fun.
UPDATE: I’ll bet that CHQR’s ratings look a lot better than those of Air America. They’ve plateaued — and not in a very strong position. Their estimated audience for the Twin Cities — with 2.6 million potential listeners age 12 and above — comes to a paltry 29,000 and a 1.1 share, in a metropolitan area known for its liberal tilt. In Atlanta — which Cynthia McKinney represents for another few months — Air America attracts a total of 7,720 listeners. In Riverside, CA, they get a big goose egg. I guess not even the station employees listen to Al Franken. (via SCSU Scholars)
Bill Frist Pledges To Take S 2590 To Floor
Dean Esmay says he feels suckered with all of the Secret Holder publicity, saying that all we would have lost without the Porkbusting effort was six days. However, this means six legislative days, and there are only 15 of them before the election, according to Frist. The hold would make the calendar very tight, especially considering all of the appropriations bills awaiting action in the Senate. And don’t forget that the House still has to take up S. 2590 after the Senate passes it.
Also, one should consider the message that our effort sent. The national attention should convice politicians that a new era of openness in government has come, even if we have to thrust it upon them.
I had the pleasure of attending a luncheon in honor of Senator Bill Frist at the Minneapolis Club this afternoon. The Senate Majority leader spoke on a wide range of topics, which will form the basis of at least a couple more posts today and tomorrow. Senator Frist also met privately for half an hour with myself, Scott Johnson, and John Hinderaker from Power Line.
I’m working on the transcript of the entire interview, but I want to be sure that CQ readers read what Senator Frist told us about the Coburn-Obama federal budget database bill, S. 2590. An anonymous Senator has placed this bill on hold, but as Frist explains, it’s not as much of an obstacle as first thought.
EM: I’d like to change the subject. We’re looking at S2590 –
BF: Yes.
EM: — the Coburn-Obama bill that came to the Senate, and you were going to schedule it to come to the floor. There’s been a hold put on that bill. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions about the hold and your options. I know you’ve been a supporter of this bill. You’ve already been asked if you put the hold on it and said no.
BF: I’m a supporter of it. I’m the one trying to take it to the floor. I’m a strong supporter of the bill.
EM: Do you know who’s holding the bill? Is that something that’s within your knowledge?
BF: I can find out, Ed. What a hold is – a lot of legislation has come to the floor and things are moving kind of fast – but what a hold is, is the ability of someone to say “Slow down and protect me on the floor.” You hear all the arguments about last-minute holds or holds occurring right before a break, and people will say, “Slow it down so we can take a look at it.” Part of it is that things come to us so quickly, and this particular bill probably most people didn’t see it because we were doing so much those last two or three days. But an individual can’t stop it or hold it from coming to the floor. What it does mean is “Put a pause on it until I can see it and protect our rights on the floor.” It’s a way to support the comity of the Senate. It doesn’t mean it can’t be taken to the floor.
EM: Are you going to take it to the floor?
BF: I did try the other day. The first step is to put it out there so people can read it. Probably only ten of 100 people have read it. But, when we get back people will know about it, because you all have done such a great job with it. The fact that I endorse the bill, that I’m trying to take it out [onto the floor], means everyone will have to go on record, because the Majority Leader is taking it out. Then they will have to say no, you can’t get unanimous consent to do it. The problem with that – people say yes, you can bring it to the floor, but gives us 24 hours, 72 hours to look at it. The 72 hours is not exact, but somewhere in there.
So what will happen is if I take it out to the floor, whoever it is – Democrat or Republican – will have to say, “I object.” And if you object, the problem with that is that it takes up to six days of votes to get it to come out to the floor. You have to file cloture positions and motions to proceed, and there have to be three of them. The first cloture is two days, the second is two days, and the third is two days. So that’s the advantage to the leadership to getting rid of these holds. I’ve not talked to the Democrats specifically about it. I’ve talked to Harry Reid.
EM: And he’s come out publicly and stated his support for the bill, as have a number of Democrats.
BF: Yes.
[Senator Frist’s press liaison intejects with a detailed explanation that working behind the scenes to clear the hold is more efficient than using the six-day procedure]
BF: And I have a hundred other bills besides this one that need attention. It’s a huge disadvantage for me not to get all the people who have these holds and objections to proceeding with unanimous consent into a room like this. After that, the holds and objections typically go away. Typically they don’t put a hold on because they don’t like the bill – it’s because they don’t like something else someone’s doing. It’s petty politics. Now on this bill, I’ll just talk to everyone and if there’s still someone who wants a hold on the bill, I’ll take it to the floor and let him object.
JH: How big a problem are the Senate rules?
BF: You heard me in there [earlier] tell you what the biggest problem is. It’s filibusters. Filibusters are a good tool for legislation, but not for nominations. Someone took the rule and bent it for their political advantage, and I broke it. They may try it again, and I’ll break it again. So that’s challenging.
The holds are used by both sides. There would be a lot more spending going on without them. People would try to push spending through and try to sneak it it – well, not sneak it in but try to get it by if someone didn’t say give me 24, 48, 72 hours to look at it and then address it. The hold system in and of itself isn’t a bad system, but what it means is that you force people to the table, instead of just stopping petty things. There’s good things that has to be done in government today. I’ve got mixed feelings. It can be abused and at times it’s abused, but for the most part it forces people to the table.
Some people would say if there’s a hold out there, you ought to publish it in the Congressional Record. The problem with that is if you put it in the Congressional Record, people get locked down. They become “heroes”, and after that you never can move them at all. It’s much better to have an opportunity to talk to them one on one, Democrat or Republican, and work through it, which you can do 95% of the time.
I’ll have more later. It appears that Senator Frist is very committed to getting this onto the floor for a vote, and he can accomplish that regardless of the holds.
UPDATE: I forgot to link to Senator Frist’s own post on this subject at Volpac. It states less explicitly that he will take the legislation to the floor regardless of the holds, but also calls on all Senators to answer blogger calls on the hold honestly. One commenter already noted that Kit Bond’s staff treated her rudely when she called. I’ll have more information on status calls in a later update.
UPDATE II: Dean Esmay says he feels suckered with all of the Secret Holder publicity, saying that all we would have lost without the Porkbusting effort was six days. However, this means six legislative days, and there are only 15 of them before the election, according to Frist. The hold would make the calendar very tight, especially considering all of the appropriations bills awaiting action in the Senate. And don’t forget that the House still has to take up S. 2590 after the Senate passes it.
Also, one should consider the message that our effort sent. The national attention should convice politicians that a new era of openness in government has come, even if we have to thrust it upon them.
Who Won From The Plame Flameout?
It’s easy to add up all of the people who lost in the collapse of Valerie Plame leak case after Michael Isikoff and David Corn revealed that Richard Armitage originally gave the information to Robert Novak. Joe Wilson watched his carefully-constructed and mostly false version of events come apart at the seams. Novak lost his job at CNN (later catching on with Fox) and came under tremendous criticism for his refusal to act to free other journalists from legal action. Patrick Fitzgerald put a lot of tarnish on his previously sterling reputation for extending a criminal investigation for years after the culprit confessed five days into the Department of Justice probe. Judith Miller lost the respect of her peers because of a belief that she protected Bush administration officials and acted as a mouthpiece for them, an assessment that none of her colleagues bothered to revisit after the Isikoff/Corn story came out on Sunday.
The only man who appears to have emerged from the spectacle relatively unharmed and perhaps enhanced is Karl Rove. Nedra Pickler takes a look at Rove unbound in the wake of the botched investigation:
Karl Rove was not “frog-marched” out of the White House in handcuffs as his detractors had hoped, but the past year was certainly a low point for President Bush’s close friend and chief political strategist.
A criminal investigation put Rove under scrutiny for months, then he was forced to surrender a key policy role in a move that raised questions about his authority in the White House.
The loss of the “key policy role” did not keep him from influencing policy, although his understandable preoccupation with the Fitzgerald witch hunt may have allowed the disastrous Harriet Miers nomination and the poor response to the initial outrage over the Dubai ports deal. In fact, the reduced responsibilities allowed Rove to focus more clearly on politics, the arena in which Rove shines brightest, and put him in a good position to quarterback the GOP’s efforts for the midterms:
The slimmed-down portfolio leaves Rove freer to focus on politics, look at the big picture and provide a gut-check in a White House that has struggled with missteps that may leave Republicans vulnerable in the midterm congressional elections. …
The Republican base never flinched at suggestions that Rove tried to smear administration critic Joe Wilson by revealing his wife’s role as a CIA operative.
Publicity surrounding the case may have increased Rove’s stature among Republicans and contributed to an almost mystical view of the longtime Bush strategist among the party faithful because he came out on top.
At a recent presidential fundraiser near Bush’s Texas ranch, a line that formed for photos with Rove was nearly as long as the line waiting to see the president.
Rove is an impressive fundraiser himself, bringing in $10.4 million in 75 events this cycle, more than any other Republican official besides the president, first lady and vice president.
In recent months, Rove has rediscovered his groove. He has aimed sharp rhetorical barbs at John Kerry and Jack Murtha, and also castigated the New York Times for its penchant for blowing national-security programs. He has fully engaged just when the Republicans needed him most, and he appears to be enjoying himself immensely.
No one touched by the Plame scandal came out unburdened in some way, if in nothing else but public reputation. Rove may be the only one whose reputation has been enhanced by the collapse of the Plame meme.
Name The Secret Holder
The Club For Growth has a new poll on the identity of the Secret Holder — the Senator who placed an anonymous hold on S.2590, the federal budget database for public scrutiny sponsored by Tom Coburn and Barack Obama. The early voting has Ted “Bridge To Nowhere” Stevens, the man who demanded that his pork pass Congress or he would say “A-beeble-a-beeble-a That’s All, Folks!”, in the lead, but the Club has several other leading candidates as possibilities.
Quite frankly, I believe we are looking at this from the wrong perspective. We’re trying to figure out who would put an anonymous hold on legislation that promises a new era of openness and transparency in government. Perhaps we should consider the obvious choices of Senators who would not commit such a cowardly act. If your count looks anything like mine, it’s a depressing but revealing exercise.
While CQ readers contemplate the polls, think about this: if you could ask the Senate leadership a single question, what would it be? Make sure you post the question to the comments section.
The Competence Of Conspiracy Theorists
We hear more voices these days expressing an age-old form of bigotry that always arises during times of conflict. Certain unhinged elements of society believe with a certain ferocity that secret Jewish cabals run the US government and create conflict around the world. When the proponents of such theories sport few teeth and carry the unmistakable aroma of high-tension liquor, they’re easy to ignore. However, when they come from academia and have a few chunks of the alphabet after their name, people tend to take them more seriously than they deserve.
Today’s case in point comes from Dana Milbank at the Washington Post, who amused himself by attending a lecture from University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer and Harvard’s Steven Walt. Mearsheimer co-authored a “study” with Walt that claimed to have laid out the machinations of the Jewish lobby. CAIR invited Mearsheimer and Walt to speak at the National Press Club to expand on their views:
University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer was in town yesterday to elaborate on his view that American Jewish groups are responsible for the war in Iraq, the destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure and many other bad things. As evidence, he cited the influence pro-Israel groups have on “John Boner, the House majority leader.”
Actually, Professor, it’s “BAY-ner.” But Mearsheimer quickly dispensed with Boehner (R-Ohio) and moved on to Jewish groups’ nefarious sway over Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who Mearsheimer called “Von Hollen.”
Such gaffes would be trivial — if Mearsheimer weren’t claiming to be an authority on Washington and how power is wielded here. But Mearsheimer, with co-author Stephen Walt of Harvard’s Kennedy School, set off a furious debate this spring when they argued that “the Israel lobby” is exerting undue influence in Washington; opponents called them anti-Semitic.
This shows the preparation and scholarship that comes into play when one writes anti-Semitic diatribes. Not that CAIR had any problem with the presentation, of course; they wasted no time giving the pair “Fight The Israel Lobby” buttons and cheered their denunciations of Israel and the Jews — which was the entire point of the event.
The circumlocutions of their logic reminds me of the lame Family Circus cartoons with Billy’s neighborhood meanderings in dotted lines. The two imply that American foreign policy has been hijacked by men with “attachments” to Israel — with the “attachment” being their Jewishness. The conspiracy has to be subtle indeed; after all, how can John Boehner and Chris Van Hollen overcome the goyim who actually run Congress — Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi? Likewise, the academics spend a lot of effort blaming Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith for insidiously leading the United States into war with Iraq for the supposed benefit of Israel, but never mention why this “attachment” affects gentiles like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and George Bush — the people who actually made those decisions.
Walt at least attempted to maintain some semblance of rationality, although it turned his arguments incoherent. He said that the Israel lobby was “not a cabal” and that merely being Jewish didn’t make one part of the conspiracy. That fails to explain why he keeps drawing that exact inference from the religious background of people like Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, neither of whom have been in the government for at least the past year. Mearsheimer just went with the full yahoud. He denounced Jewish activists, Jewish organizations, and the Israeli lobby, apparently stopping only at Jewish delis. He even told the group of Jew-haters that Israel exploited the kidnapping of its soldiers to attack Hezbollah — somehow forgetting that the kidnapping came from a Hezbollah attack that left several IDF soldiers dead and covered by a number of rockets from Lebanon into Israel.
Milbank clearly has fun dissecting the two anti-Semitic paranoid conspiracy theorists, but Chicago and Harvard should be embarrassed by this display of hatred and defective thinking.
The Terrorists Who Come Out Of Nowhere … Or Did They?
Germany’s foiled bomb plot involved terrorists who defied any attempts at interdiction — two seemingly normal Muslism students who suddenly turned radical. Only design flaws kept Jihad Hamad and Youssef el Hajdib from creating another Madrid or London scenario in Germany’s mass-transit system, and German authorities still have no clue how to identify the next do-it-yourself jihadis:
But who in fact is Hamad? An Islamist who deliberately learned German at a language school in Tripoli so that he could enter the country as a student, essentially under the radar of counterterrorism officials, and calmly go about preparing an underhanded terrorist attack? Or did a young man, hungry for education, arrive in Germany on Jan. 2, 2006 and, for some unknown reason, suddenly and without attracting attention, turn into a killer?
By last Friday, investigators still hadn’t found answers to these questions. … The arrest of Youssef Hajdib, 21, promptly set off a security debate over the consequences of the presumed change in the overall threat of terrorism in Germany. Legislators called for more surveillance cameras in public areas (although even London’s dense network of such cameras failed to prevent the 2005 bombings in that city), beefing up the country’s police forces and internal intelligence agency and speeding up a planned effort to link all security-related information to a central counterterrorism database. One member of the German parliament, the Bundestag, even proposed stationing armed “rail marshals” on German trains in the future.
But whatever Schäuble and his counterparts in the state governments decide at a conference of interior ministers scheduled for Monday, and whatever measures they take, the one thing that has investigators especially concerned is that would-be attackers may not necessarily be members of a local “domestic terrorist organization,” but simply Muslim fanatics acting entirely on their own. This presumed new breed of independent terrorists, officials believe, appear out of nowhere and form miniature cells of their own. Instead of a network and commanders, all they need is a reason to strike, bomb-building instructions they can easily download from the Internet and the conviction that they are acting on behalf of a greater cause. In some sense, these self-made terrorists may also believe that they are part of al-Qaida, which has long since transformed itself from being only a terrorist organization, instead encompassing an entire ideology.
This sounds familiar to the experiences of the British in the successful 7/7 London plot and the foiled sky-attack mission that the British uncovered this month, as well as the Toronto cell of homegrown jihadis. In this case, though Hamad and Hajdib aren’t homegrown. They both came to Germany as students, in a manner similar to some of the 9/11 hijackers. If the Germans want to try detecting these plots early, they may want to start looking at their student-visa programs from Muslim nations.
Hamad’s family tells the same story that British families and neighbors told about the suspects in the sky plot. Hamad only wanted to study languages, his mother tells Der Spiegel. “We have a pure son,” she tells the reporter — from behind her veil. His parents sent him to a Christian school, an unusual bit of background for a jihadi, but it did little to blunt his radicalism.
Besides, his parents hardly set a great example. Lebanese officials had a tap on the father, who belongs to the same Hizb-al-Tahrir group that claimed to have established the new Caliphate in Gaza. They heard him tell his son to get out of Germany as soon as he came under suspicion of the bombing attempt.
One might think that German security forces would have some investigation into the background of student visa applicants. If they had asked the Lebanese government, they might have discovered that Jihad Hamad came from a family tradition of jihadism. This additional information renders the mother’s tearful insistence that her boy couldn’t possibly be an extremist — a claim made behind a veil — almost laughable, if the subject wasn’t so deadly serious.
Western nations have to understand that Islamofascists do not target them for their foreign policy; they target the West because it isn’t Islamic. We need to start taking that threat seriously and performing tough investigations before offering visas to people from nations known to house terrorist organizations. Allowing the son of a Hizb-al-Tahrir officer into the country on a student visa seems very foolish, and if the Germans want to stop terrorist attacks, it has to stop that kind of foolishness as a first step towards sanity.
Olmert Dodges Independent Review Of War
Ehud Olmert has rejected calls for an independent investigation into the leadership and management of the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, opting to stick with an internal review of the conflict split between three different government committees. Dan Izenberg writes in today’s Jerusalem Post that the dodge will fool no one and may increase calls for the beleaguered Prime Minister’s removal:
The Movement for Quality Government and the head of the army reservists protest movement have already declared they will continue their campaign for an independent state committee of inquiry headed by a judge. Meanwhile, University of Haifa law professor Emmanuel Gross described Olmert’s proposal as a “cover-up committee.” There will be many critics, and not only from the political opposition, that will agree.
The second Lebanese War raised questions regarding three major issues: the IDF’s preparedness for and conduct of the war, the government’s definition of its war aims and its decision-making process; and the manner in which the government and the local authorities prepared the home front for the war.
Since these three issues are interrelated, the obvious and most effective thing to do would have been to examine all of them within an integrated and holistic framework.
Instead, Olmert has chosen to establish three separate committees which have no clear links of communication, information-sharing or data analysis among them.
I have no special love for independent investigations. We just discovered — again — how dangerous one can become in strong political storms. Investigators and independent panels who have no accountability can take advantage of political firestorms to commit any number of abuses. They can also deliver a conclusion that fits their own political goals rather than reality or truth.
However, that being said, the solution Olmert wants seems designed for failure. Having three committees reviewing the same war but with no coordination gives one the worst of all situations: overlapping jurisdictions and bureaucratic jealousies. The resultant analysis will be fragmented and probably contradictory and will submerge Israeli politics into recriminations and conspiracy theories for years.
The only reason a politician would opt for such a scenario is to keep people from discovering the truth, and that indicates that Olmert knows a competent investigation would bury him.
I doubt the Israelis need a blue-ribbon panel to conclude that Olmert and his staff bungled the opportunity in Lebanon. The IDF troops themselves have carried that message back home, much to Olmert’s chagrin. The troops performed well, but the leadership couldn’t decide what kind of war they wanted to wage. They started by cautiously escalating during the first two weeks, allowing Hezbollah to adapt and redeploy early. Only when time ran out on Israel did they appear serious about actually fighting to win, and instead of the weeks Olmert’s team said it would take to reach the Litani, they made it in hours when they finally took off the gloves.
The cease-fire allowed Olmert off the hook to some degree, and the end result actually favored Israel, as I have written before. However, the Israelis had the opportunity to do so much more, an opportunity that Olmert and his team wasted. Their war response took Hassan Nasrallah by surprise, and they should have exploited that in the first hours of the campaign. Olmert does not want that verdict to come from an independent panel, but Israelis won’t be fooled by his musical-chairs committees. They know he blew Israel’s big chance to strike a mortal blow to Hezbollah, and now they know he knows it.
Peacekeeper Muddle Exposes The Sham Of A European Union
Der Spiegel analyzes the fallout from the French hokey-pokey and European distancing from the formation of the expanded UNIFIL force in Lebanon. Now that Jacques Chirac got shamed into committing his troops to the peacekeeping force and Italy has also ponied up some of its own, the Europeans have commenced an orgy of self-congratulation. DS throws a dash of ice-cold water on the victory dance:
In the end, it wasn’t just a success — it was a big success. Almost a breakthrough. Appearing at a press conference on Friday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan mused: “Europe has lived up to its responsibility and provided the backbone of the force.”
Next up was German Foreign Minster Frank-Walter Steinmeier. “This was a success for Europe,” he told the gathered reporters. If things go well in Lebanon, enthusiastic Italian Foreign Minister Massimo d’Alema said, perhaps the international peacekeeping force could later be deployed to restore order in the Gaza Strip.
But ultimately, the foreign minister’s meeting in Brussels on Friday was a big piece of political theater. It provided a happy ending to a something that European leaders had threatened to turn into a farce. The 11th-hour agreement to send a 7,000-strong European contingent as part of the UN peacekeeping force for southern Lebanon created the illusion of a common foreign policy among European Union member states that doesn’t truly exist. Indeed, the actual state of the EU’s joint foreign policy was perhaps best expressed by Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioka.
An angry Tuomioka told a Finnish newspaper in early August that his 24 colleagues in the EU play a “game of intrigue” and that they prepare for joint meetings as if they are preparing for “negotiations with countries of potentially hostile intent.” Every single document relating to the Middle East conflict “is known within an hour in Tel Aviv and apparently Washington and Moscow, too.” That, the Finn argued, is no way to forging ahead with a working common foreign policy in Europe.
The EU and Kofi Annan may “muse” upon their greatness for scratching up 7,000 troops to enforce a cease-fire that they themselves demanded and then refused to support with their own resources, but the rest of the world remains less impressed. In the end, this wasn’t even an EU function, which gets to the heart of Der Spiegel’s analysis.
First, the French insisted on playing a lead role in carving out the text of what would become UN Security Council Resolution 1701. Chirac joined with the US government to create the document and jointly proposed it to the UNSC. The other EU nations had little to do with the document except demand a formula for a cease-fire. When Arab nations criticized the draft, France also started criticizing it, despite their own involvement in its creation, and tried to get the US to rewrite it to meet Arab standards for approval. When the US refused to bend over in the manner of the French, Chirac settled for making the language a little more ambiguous, and the US got the votes for its approval.
At that point, the UN, the US, and the EU expected France to lead the new UNIFIL forces and meet its earlier commitment to provide 5,000 troops for the force. France instead offered 200, apparently all they could muster on short notice. Only Italy among the EU nations offered any substantial amount of troops to cover the French collapse. After receiving humiliating criticism, France finally indicated that they would provide 3,000 troops and lead UNIFIL for six months.
If that is what the EU celebrates as a major step towards becoming a world power, it explains a lot about their behavior during the twelve-year quagmire on Iraq and the current circle jerk on Iran. The EU, as demonstrated by these examples, best resembles a cat-herding exercise, where all of the cats believe they are better than all of the rest. It takes bureaucratic stumbling to the level of performance art. And while the EU powers celebrate their martial strength, bear in mind that none of them would agree to disarm Hezbollah or stop arms from crossing the border from Syria into Lebanon.
The military prowess of the EU will be on full display during this operation. If their diplomatic manuevers give us any hint of their military leadership, they will make Olmert look like von Clauswitz.
The Secret Hold In An Open Society
The hold in the Senate on the Coburn/Obama federal budget database bill has made national news, as people wonder who the anonymous obstructor could be. Hot Air has a video of Brit Hume giving the S 2590 secret hold story national coverage, and he notes that almost three-quarters of the Senate has yet to state whether they instituted the hold. Porkbusters has a running update on the explicit denials from individual Senators. Only 25 have definitively stated that they had nothing to do with the hold so far. TPM Muckraker says they have confirmed 58 Senators that are in the clear. That still leaves more than 40% who haven’t bothered to address the issue. I address this in today’s Heritage Foundation blog post, but I want to extend my remarks here at CQ.
This entire episode should shame every member of the Upper Chamber. Using a cheap and secret political manuever to block passage of a bill that would do more to provide open government than anything since the Freedom of Information Act is not ironic, it’s cynical beyond belief. If anyone needed an example of why the nation needs S 2590, this display of political cowardice and secrecy gives perhaps the clearest one possible.
What do these men and women think we elect them to do in Washington DC? We expect our representatives to champion our interests, not cover their own expansive posteriors. The only interests served in obstructing the Coburn-Obama federal budget database is that of corruption and undue influence. At least one Senator — and it could be more — does not want taxpayers to know how Congress spends our money. I can think of few better reasons to kick someone out of politics for good.
The leaders of both parties should take this opportunity to eliminate the Senate tradition of secret holds. In an open society, few political manuevers should ever be secret — only those explicitly concerning national security or private information. This hold does not qualify as either. Allowing one member of the chamber to deny the other 99 an opportunity to pass legislation is completely undemocratic, worse than a filibuster. Its secrecy only encourages political cowardice, a trait we see too often in other circumstances anyway, and it denies the American public the transparency in government we deserve.
At the very least, Bill Frist and Harry Reid should strip the mechanism of its secrecy. Some have defended the practice by posing a hypothetical situation where Congress attempts some “midnight legislation” to pass bills without enough public notice. Defenders argue that the hold allows one Senator to stall action until the public can mobilize on an issue. All that sounds great, except it doesn’t explain why a hold under those circumstances has to be secret.
Frist and Reid should demand a public accounting from their caucuses. Failing that, the Senate should move for a rule change barring the practice of secret holds, just as they did with blue slips on judicial nominations a few years ago. Having these kind of star-chamber practices in the people’s branch of the world’s oldest democratic republic is a disgrace, a cowardly demonstration unfitting of the American tradition.
UPDATE: TPM Muckraker has a comprehensive list of all Senators who have answered with an explicit “no”. I note that Harry Reid is among the missing here, but my guess is that the Secret Holder will be either Ted “Bridge To Nowhere” Stevens, Trent “Porkbusters Annoy Me” Lott, or Robert Byrd, the man who has managed to use pork to get his name everywhere in West Virginia except rest-stop toilet seats. I’d check the next transportation bill to see if that oversight gets corrected, too.