Lying all the Way

House Minority Leader John Boehner says that "Because of the Democrats’ inaction, the Protect America Act expired last night at midnight, forcing our intelligence officials to revert to the same terror surveillance laws that failed to protect America from the al-Qaeda terrorist attack on 9/11."

As Tim Lee points out this is just an extravagantly false claim. Back in October of 2001, President Bush gave a radio address about how "The bill I signed yesterday gives intelligence and law enforcement officials additional tools they need to hunt and capture and punish terrorists." The FISA was revised again in 2002. Then FISA was revised again in 2004. Then FISA was revised again in 2006. Protect America Act aside, there have been four separate post-9/11 sets of modifications to the law in question. Most people don't know this, fair enough. But Boehner's been in congress throughout all of this -- he voted on the revisions -- and now he's pretending they don't exist.

Comments

Oh gawrsh! I sure do hope them hard-workin' Republicans can still somehow manage to keep them danged terrists from killin' us all in our sleep!

Posted by El Cid | February 17, 2008 5:54 PM

Did Boner start crying, too? He likes a staged blub, especially when he's in the midst of a big lie.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 17, 2008 6:14 PM

but GWB's radio address said pretty much the same thing.

Posted by burning flock | February 17, 2008 6:17 PM

This same statement was made by Rep. Peter Hoekstra on the Newshour on PBS on Friday:

"When this Protect America Act expires, we are going to go back under the same set of rules and regulations that were in place before 9/11. "

Journalists need to call Republicans on this. And Democrats should call Republicans who say this what they are: Liars.

Posted by MattD | February 17, 2008 6:25 PM

Hey, if we're going back to the pre-9/11 rules, does this mean that Bush Jr & Cheney & Condi will once again cancel all anti-terrorism meetings and ignore any warnings they get from their intelligence agencies?

'Cause that would be, like, askeery.

Posted by El Cid | February 17, 2008 6:29 PM

El Cid begins to get at the point i wanted to make: is it now the official storyline of the rightwing that if only Bush could have wiretapped illegally, he would have prevented 9/11?

because i don't think that dog will hunt to anyone who cares about reality, which, admittedly, excludes the rightwing.

Posted by howard | February 17, 2008 6:59 PM

He already was wiretapping illegally before 9/11, no?

Posted by MattD | February 17, 2008 7:07 PM

Wonder if any MSM outlets will note that Boehner was caught in a baldfaced lie.

Yeah, and I also wonder if Superman will fly into the White House, grab Bush and Cheney by the scruffs of their necks, and deliver them to The Hague for trial.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | February 17, 2008 7:08 PM

MattD, to the best of my knowledge, rumored but not proven....

Posted by howard | February 17, 2008 7:10 PM

Don`t forget that that not only has FISA been updated, but that surveillance authorized under the PAA can continue for a full year after its expiration, and that PAA authorizations are extremely broad. More
here

Posted by phensley | February 17, 2008 7:11 PM

Extravagantly false is right. On the TV Boehner is pretending that the PPA dates from just after 9/11, instead of August, 2007.

Why, oh why, doesn't any of press ask him about this ?

Posted by Tharsis | February 17, 2008 7:29 PM

If the day comes where Repiglicans aren't lying each and every time they open their mouths, will we even recognize them?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 17, 2008 7:44 PM

They are seeking immunity for spying back before 9/11, right?

Posted by MattD | February 17, 2008 7:51 PM

Why, oh why, doesn't any of press ask him about this ?

Because the Press only repeats what others say. Unless the Dems are out there today, tomorrow, Tuesday, etc. calling Boehner a liar and succinctly correcting his facts the Press won't lift a finger.

Posted by tom.a | February 17, 2008 7:52 PM

tom.a beat me to the obvious.

where are the ads on tv calling the republican leaders liars by name? where are the dem leaders doing the same on talk shows?

Posted by gregor | February 17, 2008 8:28 PM

Julian Sanchez nailed this brand of fearmongering:

Does Congress Realize We're at War?

Apparently, this is a popular question. And it's popular because it keeps the focus on whether opponents of unchecked surveillance have somehow failed to notice the very real threat we face. If you concede that of course we all understand that threat, then you might have to admit the real problem is simply that some of us aren't shrieking cowards whose reflexive response to danger is an embarrassing, stumbling, slapstick rush to throw every civil liberty we can find overboard in a panic. Seriously, isn't it difficult to keep up the "tough" pose while you're wetting yourself?

Posted by southpaw | February 17, 2008 8:35 PM

"Why, oh why, doesn't any of press ask him about this ?

Because the Press only repeats what others say. Unless the Dems are out there today, tomorrow, Tuesday, etc. calling Boehner a liar and succinctly correcting his facts the Press won't lift a finger.

Posted by tom.a | February 17, 2008 7:52 PM"

Journalists, at least a lot of them, are way too lazy to do things like fire up the Thomas search engine to look up actual legislation. They're also afraid of telling the truth when the truth has a liberal bias because then they're being the dreaded "liberal media" that wants to convert everyone's daughters to lesbian wiccan atheism or something. A lot of them also really don't understand policy, just like how they don't understand economics and often fail to take inflation into account when reporting on the economy.

Posted by Reality Man | February 17, 2008 8:55 PM

It was the Republicans who voted against extending the Protect America Act.

Posted by waitaminnit | February 17, 2008 9:06 PM

It takes a certain kind of wacko to get a hard on over the prospect of the government spying on you.

Posted by Linus, Birdie, Sandy | February 17, 2008 9:10 PM

MY, why focus on "FISA"? Sure, parts of the US Code have changed since 9/11. But the relevant parts--the parts that Boehner is referring to--are now the same as they were on 9/11. That's a fair point. The fact that some related law has changed doesn't make it untrue.

Posted by Thomas | February 17, 2008 9:33 PM

Boehner is absolutely correct. Matthew is the liar here.

The portions of the US Code amended by the Protect America Act have not, in fact, been amended post 9/11. Accordingly, as Boehner says, the particular laws in question (not the other parts of FISA not relevant to the discussion here) will revert to as they were on 9/11. Matthew is lying by pointing to OTHER portions of FISA that are completely irrelevant to this particular discussion.

It does not surprise me that the far-Left - people like Matthew - are lying trying to protect themselves. They know perfectly well that if terrorists successfully attack America over the next few months, the Democrats will have blood on their hands.

Posted by Al | February 17, 2008 10:03 PM

"MY, why focus on "FISA"? Sure, parts of the US Code have changed since 9/11. But the relevant parts--the parts that Boehner is referring to--are now the same as they were on 9/11. That's a fair point. The fact that some related law has changed doesn't make it untrue."

No, the Patriot Act, passed in October 2001, changed FISA.

Posted by MattD | February 17, 2008 10:12 PM

"MY, why focus on "FISA"? Sure, parts of the US Code have changed since 9/11. But the relevant parts--the parts that Boehner is referring to--are now the same as they were on 9/11. That's a fair point. The fact that some related law has changed doesn't make it untrue."

No, the Patriot Act, passed in October 2001, changed FISA.

Posted by MattD | February 17, 2008 10:12 PM

Yes, the Patriot Act amended FISA, and FISA was again amended later. But what does that mean? The relevant provisions--the provisions at issue--are few, and they weren't amended. So why focus on the sections that weren't amended? And why pretend that focusing on the relevant portions, which weren't amended, is somehow dishonest? It seems to me that the opposite focus is closer to dishonest, but it's more likely in MY's case to simply be the result of ignorance. (Most of his mistakes are.)

Posted by Thomas | February 17, 2008 10:18 PM

Al: "It does not surprise me that the far-Left - people like Matthew - are lying trying to protect themselves. They know perfectly well that if terrorists successfully attack America over the next few months, the Democrats will have blood on their hands."

Al, I realize (like me) you're watching the game while commenting, but c'mon, MY=far left?

Question: who the hell is the near-left?

BTW, Bush believes he can, um, 'break' the law when semi-important, so sleep well.

Posted by Andruw | February 17, 2008 10:22 PM

Look, this

"Because of the Democrats’ inaction, the Protect America Act expired last night at midnight, forcing our intelligence officials to revert to the same terror surveillance laws that failed to protect America from the al-Qaeda terrorist attack on 9/11."

is the meme that all the Republicans are spreading.

But it's false. It's a lie. They have the expanded authority given to them by the Patriot Act, which amended FISA. Investigations that commenced under the PAA statue may continue under those rules.

You're right, parts of the PAA, most notably telecom immunity, will go back to where they were on 9/11. And they ought to stay there.

Boehner makes statements like this:

"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was written and passed during the Cold War era, and in August Congress updated it to reflect the sophisticated and adaptive nature of the terrorist threat."

The implication is that bill is outmoded because it hasn't been changed since "the Cold War era" (think black and white films of kids ducking and covering--that era). But it *has* been changed. Maybe not enough. That's a debate that can be had. But PAA supporters shouldn't lie about changes to FISA.

Posted by MattD | February 17, 2008 10:24 PM

Why is no one talking about this?

This is the best political news I have heard in a very, very long time.

Posted by R. Vangala | February 17, 2008 10:26 PM

I'd say that Matthew's policy preferences are, say, within 10% farthest left in the country. I mean, Matthew's preferred policy on Iraq - immediate withdrawal - is favored by less than 20%. Combine that with universal health care, etc., and you easily get into the 10% farthest left.

Posted by Al | February 17, 2008 10:29 PM

Thomas:

The reason why we're focusing on the entire bill, rather than the parts that (perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly--though I think very wrongly) are claimed to need amending is because the Republicans have been lying about FISA.

They should have said, and very easily could have said what you're saying:

"The relevant portions of FISA, the portions most important to catching the people trying to kill us, haven't been modified since before 9/11. The PAA did this, and now we're in more danger."

If *that* were the claim, we could argue as to whether things like telecom immunity were necessary for our safety.

But by lying (unnecessarily, I think), the Republicans have shifted the debate away from its merits onto their false meme.

That's unfortunate for both sides in the PAA debate.

Posted by MattD | February 17, 2008 10:30 PM

I don't care what MY's political views are. But when you start taking the conjunction of propositions and looking at probabilities who hold them, anyone winds up in a very, very small minority. It's a disingenuous way of arguing.

(The distinctions in the Iraq withdrawal spectrum tend to be pretty bogus anyway. You can't leave immediately; even if one began to draw down troops, it would take at least six months to leave.)

Posted by MattD | February 17, 2008 10:38 PM

Boehner didn't say what Al implies he said.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 17, 2008 10:40 PM

But the relevant parts--the parts that Boehner is referring to--are now the same as they were on 9/11. That's a fair point.

No, it's not. I heard Boehner with my own ears. He said that FISA was old. He said that there had been changes immediately after 9/11 to bring it up to date. Both of those are fair points. Then he said that letting the PAA expire took us back to where we were on 9/11. That is not a fair point, but is instead disinformation, as the PAA was only 6 months old. He was deliberately conflating the changes done just after 9/11 with the changes done last summer, which might be legally true if made under oath, but was certainly intended to mislead.

A reporter worth his salary would have stopped this, just by asking Boehner when the Bill that expired was first enacted.

Posted by tharsis | February 17, 2008 10:44 PM

Al: "I'd say that Matthew's policy preferences are, say, within 10% farthest left in the country."

MY street cred rises!

Seriously, Al, that may be an extreme number. Did MY advocate nationalizing the means of production while I was watching Ray Allen's sweet shot?

Posted by Andruw | February 17, 2008 10:53 PM

I'm more interested in what preferences the beautiful erudite wonky Matthew has in things other than policy. You know the old Woody Allen joke: bisexuality doubles your chances of a date on Saturday night.

Posted by Queer Eye for the Straight Y | February 17, 2008 10:56 PM

You know, the right wing radical crowd (read Leninists in capitalist's clothing)who want to unconservatively remake the world by abstract, unproven, unworkable theories, think the solution to every discussion is to call their oponents "far left".

As they used to say when I was small, "it takes one to know one."

Is there obsession with the left because they know dang well that they are not conservative, they are radical, using the same modus-operandi employed by Marx and Lenin?

Disinformation is GOOD for us. The ruling elite knows best! Oh, the ruling elite runs corporations? And this differs from Communist China in what particular?

Posted by Tim Connor | February 17, 2008 11:01 PM

"He was deliberately conflating the changes done just after 9/11 with the changes done last summer, which might be legally true if made under oath, but was certainly intended to mislead."

Right, it takes us back to July 2007, and anytime before that. Pre 9/11 is true, of course. But why say that, rather than pre-1982, or pre-1995, or any other date before 9/11 and after 1978? Because it's an attempt to scare: We couldn't track the terrorists because we didn't have the right wiretapping laws before 9/11 (NB: Totally false).

No, no. You want to talk about why we were vulnerable before 9/11? Lets talk about important intelligence briefs sitting on Condi's desk, while the Administration is focused instead on sweetheart deals for BigOil. Yes, let's talk about that.

The cynical manipulation of 9/11 in an attempt to engage in even more crony capitalism--this time with the telecom companies--makes me ill.

Posted by MattD | February 17, 2008 11:01 PM

Al: yet again in the top 1% of complete fucking hack trolls.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 17, 2008 11:03 PM

Why is no one talking about this?

This is the best political news I have heard in a very, very long time.

Posted by R. Vangala | February 17, 2008 10:26 PM

The linked material contains one of the subtler Republican smears I've seen in a while. Nevertheless, it remains misleading trash.

Posted by southpaw | February 17, 2008 11:07 PM

Damn, Ray Allen getting the MVP would have been sweet.

Matt, we needed a thread here.

Posted by Andruw | February 17, 2008 11:25 PM

MattD writes: "You want to talk about why we were vulnerable before 9/11? Lets talk about important intelligence briefs sitting on Condi's desk, while the Administration is focused instead on sweetheart deals for BigOil. Yes, let's talk about that."

There's also my personal favorite, the Jesus-wacky AG John Asscrap blowing off any effort against terrorism because he really, really wanted to crack down on porn. And not just porn - he was also more concerned with covering up statue tits!

Dumbya Bush was ready from Day One to be the shittiest president we've ever had, and he lived down to his potential and then some.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 17, 2008 11:38 PM

So, is the suggestion by the right that if George W. Bush Jr. were to allow another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, this too would be the fault of Democrats?

Gee, I wonder if the Democrats had passed every single thing President Pissy Pants had demanded, would the Republicans have still blamed the Democrats for any attack which occurred?

Yes, yes they would. Of course they would.

Because everything is always the fault of the liberals and the Democrats and the colored folks and the teachers' unions and the hippies and the Hollywood elites, no matter how many Republicans are in charge.

Nothing is ever, ever, ever their fault.

Posted by El Cid | February 18, 2008 12:14 AM

The linked material contains one of the subtler Republican smears I've seen in a while. Nevertheless, it remains misleading trash.

Yes. However, it's probably not a good idea to encourage blogwhoring trolls like that commenter by acknowledging their comments.

Posted by James Gary | February 18, 2008 12:24 AM

i was just killing a minute catching up and of course, was reminded why al should stick to sports.

the actual polling data is that 20% or so favor immediate withdrawal and another 40+% favor withdrawal within one year, which is to say that 60%+ of americans (including matthew) feel the same way: that only the dead-enders like Al want to stick around while the rest of us do not believe the cost is worth whatever it is that he thinks we're doing there (and whatever that is, it is not in the slightest making this country safer from terrorism, or the entire propaganda circus around the formal lapsing of PAA.

Posted by howard | February 18, 2008 12:28 AM

I'm in favor of letting parts of FISA lapse as long as it increases the chances that a terrorist attack will kill Al and his whole family.

Posted by Shrill Bipartisan | February 18, 2008 2:43 AM

"complete fucking hack trolls."

Hey, I resemble that remark - the "hack" part.

It's interesting that the right wing nuts get all worked up over some unneeded spy laws lapsing - while all their heroes in the Pentagon and the State Department - guys like Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Grossman - are all selling US nuclear secrets to Pakistan via Turkey and classified info to Israel and actually getting suspects airlifted out of the US before they can be investigated by the FBI.

Half the neocons are involved in direct treason to the US - and the right wing nuts couldn't care less.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 18, 2008 4:19 AM

This whole thread demonstrates why Democrats lose the national security debate.

As Howard pointed out upthread, the accuracy of Boehner's remarks is debateable. They are (surprise, surprise) completely disingenuous, but your need for cathartic self-righteousness of yelling "Liar, Liar!" is completely screwing you on the issue at hand.

You get sucked into a debate where you (tacitly) agree that the Democrats are returning us to a less rigorous surveilance regime, but you think you're winnning because you've caught your opponent pretending that the law in question was passed in 2001 instead of 2004.

Who the fuck cares?

The problem with America's security efforts pre-9/11 had nothing to do with how flagrantly we were violating the Bill of Rights. We had an FBI field agent sending reports about this nutjob who wanted flying lessons but no landing lessons. (Her superiors told her to shut up) We had siezed a computer with the entire hijacking plot detailed on its hard drive, but the FBI's IT department never got around to cracking it. (They were too busy failing to upgrade the Burea's data center).

I have no idea how you fix that sort of bureacratic pathology, but until the Democrats and the Left start to champion an alternative solution, and get over the obsessive quest to catch Republicans in an inconsequential lie, you will lose this debate badly.

And you will deserve to.

Posted by heedless | February 18, 2008 6:07 AM

We have had four other broad tendancies where the Left, and through them, Democrats,
lose the national security debate. On top of Heedless's good 5th observation that Democrats, through the Left are locked into obsessing about trivial legalistic minutae, uncaring about major bureacratic malfunctions that allowed radical Muslims free run of the country

1. Decades long loathing and hatred of the military, attempts to ban recruiting, ROTC then undercut their funding and benefits. Adding regular propaganda that soldiers are just dumb victims, manipulated by those smart enough and hard-working enough to go to college.
In many Blue States, not only do liberals have no concept of military service and ways and culture - they rarely know someone who served after Vietnam.

2. A strong anti-American attitude that excuses not only communist megadeaths and beastial barbarity in the 3rd world, but even seeks to excuse terrorists as "naturally" standing up to evil white Oppressors.

3. After the civil rights era, the Left created the Cult of Victimhood and the relentless drive to add other groups to the rights law-abiding US citizens had. Prisoner rights, then alien rights. Then rights under the Us Constitution of people in African mudholes to sue, demand asylum. Then illegal alien rights. Now terrorist rights. Oblivious to the fact that most Americans are not keen on prisoner rights and illegal aliens having the same right as law-abiding citizens, let alone blood-thirsty Muslim terrorists.

4. Most Americans believe that national security is highly important and it is up to the President and elected representatives - not the civilian courts with no military role in a conflict - to maintain our safety or defeat an enemy the menaces that safety, because they believe no civil liberty remains when Muslims kill thousands of them...

On the other hand, the Left has come to a Jewish, vs. English Common Law approach. That the new Sanhedrin, the Courts, as in modern Israel, are supreme above the executive and legislative Branches of Government. Worship of "The Law" as high priest/lawyers interpret it, above the Will of The People through their elected Representatives and democratic petition of issues and process, And believ full rights, even for foreign terrorists out to kill and take away all rights of American victims, is more important than security. Which, criminal or national security against enemy - they hold to be a purely incidental afterthought and only properly defined by August Courts and lawyers after "due process".

Posted by chris ford | February 18, 2008 7:15 AM

The smear campaign against the Democrats in Congress has already begun. Attached is todays' column by the fascist cocksucking lying shithead Robert Novak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/17/AR2008021701734.html?sub=AR

Posted by SLC | February 18, 2008 7:20 AM

Re Chris Ford

Attached is a link to the Dispatches web site with a commentary by Ed Brayton which disputes the last comment by Chris white trash Ford.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/02/mommy_im_scared.php#more

Posted by SLC | February 18, 2008 7:25 AM

Shorter Chris Ford: Blah blah blah Lefties, blah blah blah Jews.

Note: this one is slightly different from the normal SCF. Usually, the "blah blah blah Jews" part comes first.

Posted by Thlayli | February 18, 2008 10:56 AM

Democrats don't "lose" the "national security debate."

Democratic politicians don't even make an argument: they just give in to Republican nonsense.

So, as long as most major Democrats simply refuse to stand up for sanity and are cowed by Republican and media arguments, the astounding incompetents (Republicans) who allowed the largest attacks ever on U.S. soil and who had no idea how to respond to a flood in a major city still get to prance around in their childhood cowboy costumes and order other men to go invade & occupy Iraq so that they can continue their sexual perversions of imagining themselves to be rough & tough.

Posted by El Cid | February 18, 2008 10:56 AM

get to prance around in their childhood cowboy costumes and order other men to go invade & occupy Iraq so that they can continue their sexual perversions of imagining themselves to be rough & tough.

El Cid is projecting again as cowardly, Lefty homosexuals are wont to do.

Thalyi - Shorter Chris Ford: Blah blah blah Lefties, blah blah blah Jews.

Yet not a word to dispute what I said about Lefty actions that lead them to be so distrusted on national security, nor a rebuttal of my point of the Jewish preference for perverting the basis of National government from 3 co-equal branches to "What the New Sanhedrin says is legal and ordered by lawyers dressed in robes of office".

Shorter Thalyi - I don't have a rebuttal, so I will cleverly (or so I think) mock those who disagree with me.

Posted by chris ford | February 18, 2008 2:50 PM

I'm not projecting, because when I wanted to join the military, I did, unlike my nation's cowardly Republican political leadership, who with rare exception prefer faux manliness to actual service, and they prefer to simulate macho with fetishistic discussions of toughness and vulnerability.

I really, really wish it were necessary for me to exaggerate in order to lampoon the homoerotic fixations of the contemporary U.S. right (I don't recall the ACLU slavering over "300" like our super-ultra macho Village People right wing did.)

Unfortunately, the cowardice and male thong fascinations of the contemporary U.S. right is all too documented, what with their recent 4 year stint holding absolute power over every branch of government giving them plenty of opportunities to choose bronzing over the harsh Iraqi sun.

Posted by El Cid | February 18, 2008 5:46 PM

Heh, this is funny! SLC has a new obsession - Chris Ford!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 18, 2008 11:15 PM

Dear chris ford, aka black hole of stupidity:

1. In your eyes, I have been a 'lefty' AND been in the military for the past few decades (since 1987), so I don't think you quite hit me with your first jab there. I'm still in the Reserves, by the way. How about you?

2. Absolutely wrong. I can simultaneously condemn a suicide bomber and yet understand why certain policies make him more likely to act in the extreme way he does. Enacting the right policies will partially disarm those who would recruit terrorists by making some of their arguments fall flat.

3. To directly respond to this would be to pass over the event horizon of your mental black hole, but I will say that EVER torturing anyone--or depriving anyone subject to US authority of constitutional due process when it isn't completely impractical--means we fall short of our ideals.

4. Islamic terrorism using conventional weapons, including passenger aircraft, does not constitute an existential threat to our way of life. (Unfortunately, since 9/11, we have acted in ways that will make it more of a threat moving forward.) Ceding unchecked authority for surveillance and detention to the federal government during a 'war on terror' without foreseeable end terminates our Constitution. Since I have sworn an oath to support and defend that Constitution, that offends me. And you offend me, sir.

Posted by Other Mike | February 19, 2008 9:44 PM

MESSAGE

Posted by ISHMAel back | March 4, 2008 9:52 PM