Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

Another D.C. Democrat We Don't Need

This coming Friday, Russ Feingold will get to talk about his censure
resolution. So, does anyone else find conversations like this one on Fox to be
counterproductive for our side, if not downright infuriating? Meet the latest
D.C. Democrat
without a clue, Carl Levin, who couldn't be more out of touch if he'd just come
back from a long trip in outer space. Read it for yourself.

WALLACE: What do you think — on a new subject,
what do you think Senator Feingold's mention to censure the president for
his NSA warrantless wiretap program?

LEVIN: Well, I think there, first of all, should be,
obviously, a hearing as to what happened, the legality of it, the operations
of it. I think the president made a mistake in not following the requirements
of the law that he seek a warrant.

But in terms of censure, I would not reach any conclusion
on that until there have been hearings both on the legality issue as well
as how it actually operates, whether or not, in fact, there is probable cause
to believe that somebody is engaged in some kind of an operation with the
Taliban, as the president says there always is.

But is there, in fact, probable cause before phones
are tapped? That is something which should be investigated by both the Intelligence
Committee and other appropriate committees.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about that. You're a
member of this new Intelligence Subcommittee that has been named to oversee
the program. Have you been briefed and what have you found out?

LEVIN: My briefing is about halfway through. And I
don't want to tell you what I found out.

I'm not allowed to, except I'll tell you what my focus
is. My focus is to see whether or not the president of the United States accurately
has represented this program as one where there must be probable cause to
believe that before an American's phone is tapped that he is either a member
of or affiliated with the Taliban or an affiliated organization, or an agent
of Taliban or — I mean, sorry, Al Qaeda, excuse me — a member
or an agent of Al Qaeda or an affiliated organization.

That is what my focus is going to be, because if that's
not true…

WALLACE: And what have you found out so far?

LEVIN: I'm not allowed to tell you what I found out
so far because these briefings are highly classified. When I'm finished with
my review, which I hope will be in the next few weeks, I hope to find out
— I hope to find a way that I can either say yes, the president accurately
reflected the program or that I disagree, but I'm not sure I'll be able to
even do that within the rules.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you, just to press this a
little bit further, one of your colleagues on this subcommittee, a Democratic
colleague, Senator Diane Feinstein, came out afterwards and said that she
thought it was a very impressive program and didn't have a contrary word to
say about it.

LEVIN: Well, she has, obviously — she feels comfortable
saying what she wants to say about her briefing. I don't want to say anything
about the way this program operates or reach any conclusion until my briefings
are concluded.

But then again, I hope to be able to find a way that
I can either look people in the eye and say this program is one where there
is probable cause of the precise type that the president assured the nation.

That to me is critical. Then if there is probable cause
to believe that these people who are engaged in these conversations are Al
Qaeda-connected agents or members, then the question is is it legal, or do
you have to modify the law in order to make it legal.

WALLACE: But there's a political reality in this, too,
as I don't have to tell you. Do Democrats want to be in the position of investigating
the president for possible censure, a president in the middle of wartime,
over a program that, at least according to some people who have been briefed
on it, including a Democrat, does a good job in protecting the American people?

LEVIN: No, I think it's premature to reach any conclusion
about censure, and I would first put the inquiries before you reach any conclusion.

WALLACE: Do you think it was helpful to even raise
the idea?

LEVIN: No, I think to say that you should censure
the president before you have had the inquiries is premature, so I don't think
it's helpful to reach that conclusion at this point.

Sen.
Carl Levin on 'FOX News Sunday

Senator Feingold deserves better. But more importantly, so do the
American people. Is it so much to ask that the president be held accountable?
It's infuriating that many D.C. Democrats don't think so.