Silvestre Reyes

What's the point of the Democratic Party? I know that technically its job is to get Democrats elected to office. But what of it?

What is the point if Democrats don't use the power that they gain in holding office?

What is the point if Democrats give their power away?

What is the point if Democrats let themselves get played for suckers over and over again in the most predictable ways.

Salon.com: Democratic leadership: not just complicit but also self-destructive

The signs are unmistakably clear that what was always inevitable -- full compliance by the House Democratic leadership with Bush's demands on warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty -- is now imminent. House leaders spent the week floating their specific proposals for how they intend to comply in full, and yesterday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes went on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, refused to criticize the President or the Senate FISA bill, and repeatedly and meekly expressed his willingness "this week" to give what he called full "blanket immunity" to telecoms (C&L has the video of Reyes' astoundingly weak and incoherent answers in response to Blitzer's Bush-mimicking questions).

What is the point of feigning that you object to a single party government when all you do is help an Executive who thinks he is King.

What is the point of taking the flak that comes from the right wing when you refuse to cave, the threats that Democrats are making us less safe every day they delay -- when you have no intention of keeping up the fight?

What is the point of that when you just give in?

Do they think Republicans won't attack them for stalling?  Now that they've caved entirely, they're admitting that Bush was right and that they were putting America at risk by not letting George W. 19% illegally spy on citizens.

Republicans WILL attack them.  That's what Republicans do.  They consolidate power and use it for the purpose of the party's ideology and to continue it's health. 

If Democrats merely help Republicans do what Republicans want to do, then what is the point of the Democrats?

Democrats don't enforce their oversight powers. Even when the opposition has admitted to committing crimes. 
Democrats instead grant even more power to the lawbreaking Executive. Indeed, doing the very opposite of oversight, they grant retroactive immunity to the criminals for the crimes they committed.

And at the end of the day the Democrats will be attacked for not having completely caved fast enough.

What is the point of the Democratic Party?

Last week Attorney General Mukasey told Democrats to stick their subpoenas up their asses. And the response is, "Here's some more power."  What is the point of the Democratic Party.

Pelosi was asked what was most important about regaining majority status. "Subpoena power," she said.

Those of us who work in national Democratic Party politics know that we have total fucking stiffs heading up the House and Senate intelligence committees. This is self-evident in the wake of something head-slappingly insane like this Iran NIE release.

It's totally obvious now that Cheney's apocalyptic drive for World War III impelled cooler heads across the river to throw Bush overboard. Did the Dems toss him an anchor? Of course not. Did they try to inject themselves into the narrative at all, even?

No, they're proving themselves just as out of the loop as Bush is.

Can anyone fathom how little public credibility or impact Chairmen Rep. Silvestre Reyes and Sen. Jay Rockefeller have?! If one had the blind faith of a thousand Obamas, enough to move mountains, one might foolishly hope that these guys are doing things beneath the radar that we're not aware of. But based on the past 48 hours (and indeed the past several months of administration lies on Iran), it sure seems like not.

As Spencer Ackerman notes, rather than getting ahead of this news -- let alone creating it by pushing for the release of an Iran NIE that's months old -- Rockefeller said he had nothing to do with the release, and Reyes, even worse, wants to be "fully informed about the classified sources upon which this estimate is based" and that he will "review areas where certain agencies dissent."

This comes from a horrendous official statement that manages to be both hawkish and befuddled. Sounds like a dude who has no idea what the hell is going on. I know that the Dems on the House committee are pretty good members overall, but there's nobody with any kind of profile, with the possible exceptions of Holt and Patrick Murphy. Still there is no attempt to get one of these guys in the news cycle on this!

The Senate is even worse. The most recent press release on the committee homepage is from October 18 (on, kill me, FISA). Nothing on Rockefeller's homepage (where there's one press release posted for all of November). It's not like there aren't good progressives on the committee (Feingold, Whitehouse, Wyden), but none of them have built a media-ready profile on these issues.

When the media has go-to guys for Democratic Party intelligence matters who know what they're talking about, and who know how to tell a story about our perspective, then we won't constantly be playing catch-up. Until then, we're pathetic.

Intel chairs can see these reports. It's been talked about for months that this Iran NIE was circulating and being fought over. How did Reyes or Rockefeller not get a copy of the damn thing months ago and scream (unclassified) bloody murder? Rather than the Iran NIE being an issue where Dems are leading on the Hill, it's an issue of "good" Republicans against "bad" Republicans within the administration.

Knowing our binary media, that narrative with a Dem perspective is even too complicated - factions within parties? Whoa, that's like, so insider baseball, for these idiots.  The Democratic perspective is completely left out of the story.

Guys, when Bush claims the world is flat, it's not enough to let the facts speak for themselves - Dems must force the morning headline to read: "Bush Claims Earth Flat, Democrats and Vast Majority of Population Demand Psychological Tests and Resignation."

Otherwise, as Paul Krugman said, the headline will read: "Opinions Differ on Shape of Earth."

So as a result, "the story", if you can call it that, is as The Rude Pundit called it in his live commentary during the White House press conference:

Whoa, methinks he just stormed off. Angry that the reporters would dare think he's not been working to make sure their families are not nuked by non-existent Iranian weapons. Don't we get it? He's right. Everyone else in the world and in half of his administration and Congress is wrong. And if we can't see his innate rightness, then we can all go fuck ourselves. Now, someone tell the Rude Pundit why anyone anywhere should trust this man?

My advice for if we didn't have total fucking stiffs heading up the House and Senate intelligence committees?

The most visible members of the Democratic Caucus, in that they can literally command camera time (aside from the celebrities), are the chairs of key committees - here's a quick example of how inept they are.

In August, Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, arranged a trip for Bush's Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell to El Paso for a conference he hosted on border security.

The two men gave an interview to the El Paso Times where the National Intelligence Director, Mike McConnell revealed some classified details of Bush Administration's domestic spy program.

[btw. notice how there's no masses of lawmakers from the opposition party (Dems) bellowing that McConnell's treason is killing our soldiers. If the tables were turned... you bet your ass they would...]

Anyway, in this interview, McConnell said that Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch is mandated in the Constitution killing our soldiers. That the Democrats in Congress who insist on following the Constitution sticking their noses where it don't belong are going to kill Americans. Democrats, like, for instance, the one sitting next to him, and who arranged his trip to sunny El Paso.

"Thanks for the trip, buddy. Fuck you and your friends."

Reyes did not object to McConnell's comments.

But then... A month later, McConnell was testifying before the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee and lied. He said that the new expansive FISA legislation passed by Congress prior to the August recess — the Protect America Act — had helped to thwart a an alleged terror plot in Germany.

Oops, Nope. An Administration official later told the Times that what McConnell said was untrue, and that the intelligence had been collected under the old FISA law which required warrants. There goes your argument that we need fewer rights to get more security, right?

[First, how was he able to lie like that? Who are the chairs of the SHSGA Committee? None other than chairman Joe Lieberman (CT for Lieberman-CT) and ranking member Susan Collins (R-Mississippi/Maine).]

More importantly what came of this lie under oath?

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) demanded McConnell back up his sworn statement. Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) said the Protect America Act “played no role in uncovering the recent German terrorist plot.” House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes urged McConnell “to issue a public statement immediately” correcting his remarks.

One guy said "come back and talk more about your lie - here's a shovel, keep digging."
One guy said "That's not true. Hey!"
And our media-nimble Rep. Reyes advised his friend to correct his sworn testimony with a statement!

Nobody quickly said anything like: "There goes your argument that we need fewer rights to get more security."

When presented with a perfect opportunity to communicate the difference in worldviews & values between the mendacious Republican Administration and the Democrats who represent mainstream American values, Reyes DOES THE OPPOSITE.

When presented with an opportunity to hold accountable an Administration official who committed perjury - which our own Senate precedent establishes as a high crime and misdemeanor, he DOES THE OPPOSITE.

When given a chance to screw right back the guy who screwed him just one month before- he DOES THE OPPOSITE.

Oh, and by the way, he's ignorant. After four years of intelligence briefings, Silvestre Reyes' lack of current world affairs is appalling. Truly.  Here's one head-slapper:

We warmed up with a long discussion about intelligence issues and Iraq. And then we veered into terrorism’s major players.

To me, it’s like asking about Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: Who’s on what side?

The dialogue went like this:

Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?

“Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?”

“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.

“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.

He couldn’t have been more wrong.

Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.

Good God.