Rove Scandal Drives Frist Bonkers
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has not had a good year. He was outmaneuvered by Senate Democrats on Social Security. He made a fool of himself in the Terri Schiavo tragedy (with his long-distance diagnosis of Schiavo). He botched the Bolton nomination. He was outplayed by John McCain in the judicial filibuster controversy. And on Thursday, in an effort to counter a Democratic effort to embarrass Karl Rove and the Republicans, he looked like a doofus.

Here's what happened. The Senate Democrats came up with a clever idea. Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, introduced an amendment that could have been called the Karl Rove Memorial Act. It said,

No federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed, classified information, including the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not authorized to receive such information shall be permitted to hold a security clearance for access to such information.

This was legislative gotcha. Would GOPers actually vote against this measure and essentially say that a government official who leaks classified information is entitled to keep his or her security clearance? For the Rs, the question was, What to do? But Frist had a bright idea--or what he and his staff considered a bright idea. He introduced a counter-amendment. It read,

Any federal officeholder who makes reference to a classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the floor of the United States Senate, or any federal officeholder that makes a statement based on an FBI agent's comments which is used as propaganda by terrorists organizations thereby putting our servicemen and women at risk, shall not be permitted access to such information or to hold a security clearance for access to such information.

This was a direct dig at Senator Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip. Several weeks ago, in a speech decrying the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo, Durbin quoted from FBI reports that noted that interrogators at Gitmo were using "torture techniques" and engaging in abusive practices. He then likened this conduct to actions one would expect to find in Nazi prison camps or a Soviet gulag. The conservatives went nuts and viciously assailed Durbin; he eventually apologized.

This amendment was clearly designed to revive that controversy. But it punished public speech. And the standard it established was crazy. Under this law, if a federal officeholder (like a senator) would make any statement "based on" (whatever that means) any comment from an FBI agent (even a public remark that is not classified) and that officeholder's comment would then be used as "propaganda" (please, define propaganda) by terrorist organizations (please, define terrorist organizations), then that officeholder would lose his or her security clearance.

Imagine this scenario. FBI Director Robert Mueller appears before Congress and acknowledges that the FBI's computer system is completely messed up (which, by the way, it is). Afterward, a senator, citing Mueller's testimony, declares, "Four years after 9/11, we're still vulnerable in many ways. For instance, the FBI still cannot effectively track terrorist suspects and manage its terrorism records." Next, terrorist organizations post that quote from the senator on their websites and observe that the Great Enemy is unable to defend itself against jihadists and now is a good time to strike American targets. Under Frist's amendment, this senator would lose his security clearance. This is bonkers.

Even some--though not most--GOP senators realized that. Frist got only 33 votes. One person who observed the vote tells me, "Some very unlikely suspects including--people like [Jim] Talent and [Saxby] Chambliss--voted against it. When it became clear that the amendment would fail, some Rs who had voted for it switched their votes." How's that for loyalty to the leader? This witness notes, "Once the voting started, it appears that many Rs suddenly realized that the amendment was so poorly written that they could be stripped of their clearance as well." Yes, the imaginary senator I mentioned above could have been a rip-roaring conservative Republican.

So Frist, trying to beat back a Rove-related Democratic initiative, cooked up a damn silly piece of legislation that 22 of his fellow Republicans would not support. What a leader.

And what of Reid's amendment? It failed on a 44-53 vote. Not one Republican voted for it. Apparently, the Repubs believe that a government official who leaks classified information--such as the identity of an undercover intelligence official--should not be denied access to classified information. Not even during a war. Protecting Karl Rove (and future Karl Roves) trumps national security for these patriots.

*losing

*comeuppance for catching my error on TSIS earlier*

Hey, I was protecting you from embarrassment in front of the whole world.

You give frist too much credit.

I mean really. Did he ever have it?

I mean he did diagnose a patient through the television, maybe he's just that brilliant.

BLOG | Posted 07/18/2005 @ 10:30am
Frist vs Science

Last May the Republican-dominated House of Representatives voted to loosen President Bush's limits on embryonic stem cell research, allowing scientists to study cells derived from soon-to-be discarded embryos at fertility clinics. Senate Democrats and moderate Republicans could pass similar legislation as soon as this week. Conservatives realize they're opposing a popular policy that could be used against them as a wedge issue in midterm elections next year and in 2008. So Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has devised an alternative that undermines science while scoring political points.

In 2001, Frist came out in support of embryonic research, calling the science "a promising and important line of inquiry." But a month later, under pressure from Christian conservatives, President Bush limited federal funding to already-existing stem cell lines, which are few in number and often already contaminated. Frist quickly fell in line.

Now his so-called alternative would bypass "ethical constraints" by obtaining stem cells without destroying embryos. Only this method remains entirely unproven and has yet to appear in a major scientific medical journal or clear the peer review process. Even scientists exploring this approach call the choice between supporting the bipartisan legislation co-sponsored by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter and Frist's alternative "a no-brainer."

"We need to pass" the Harkin-Specter bill, Robert Lanza, vice president of medical and scientific research for Advanced Cell Technology, told the Senate. "I do not think we should keep the scientific community or the patient community waiting."

The House may not have enough votes to override President Bush's threat of a veto (which would be his first). The Senate might.

As he undergoes chemotherapy for Hodgkin's Disease, Specter says he's "madder than hell" watching Republicans stall legislation that could help researchers discover an eventual cure for cancer, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease. "Try a few chemotherapy treatments and see how you feel," Specter told the Associated Press, dismissing opposition from the GOP's born-again Christian base. "The potential for stem cells has been held in abeyance much too long."

More Frist Nonsense

I interrupt our coverage of the Rove scandal to return to another favorite subject: Bill Frist's awful tenure as Senate majority leader.

In a way, he is the worst congressional leader in years. As majority leader, Frist has screwed up an assortment of high-profile matters: Terri Schiavo, the John Bolton nomination, and the nuclear option. This week, he put the gun lobby ahead of American troops. On Tuesday, he failed to pass the defense authorization bill, which establishes funding levels for the US military. The big problem for Frist was that several GOPers--including Lindsey Graham and John McCain--were pushing for an amendment that would ban cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment at US military facilities. The administration--and, thus, Frist--oppose this provision. So Frist set aside the $491 billion defense bill rather than go ahead with a vote on this amendment. And how did he respond to his own failure to get the defense authorization bill through? He put aside the measure and set up a vote on legislation that would protect gun sellers from lawsuits. Yes, he decided to help gunmakers instead of dealing with the needs of US soldiers.

Frist must really want the gun-owners vote bad for his upcoming presidential bid. Last week, on the Senate floor, he claimed it was imperative to pass this legislation because without it the US firearms industry could collapse and "the Department of Defense faces the real prospect of having to outsource firearms for our soldiers to foreign manufacturers." Frist said, "Without this legislation it is probable the American manufacturers of legal firearms will be faced with a real prospect of going out of business, ending a critical source of supply for our armed forces, our police and out citizens." In other words, if victims of gun violence can sue reckless gun sellers, then the Iraqi insurgency gains.

The folks at the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence tried to counter Frist's hyperbole. They noted that the Pentagon has not voiced any such worry and that the gun industry is doing just fine these days without the legislation Frist so fervently desires. And, they pointed out, no flood of litigation has deluged gun industry. Here are some facts the campaign disseminated:

* The only two publicly-held gun companies have filed recent statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission contradicting the claim that they are threatened by lawsuits. Smith & Wesson filed a statement with the SEC on June 29, 2005, stating that "we expect net product sales for fiscal 2005 to be approximately $124 million, a 5% increase over the $117.9 million reported for fiscal 2004. Firearms sales for fiscal 2005 are expected to increase by approximately 11% over fiscal 2004 levels.: In another filing, dated March 10, 2005, Smith & Wesson wrote, "In the nine months ended January 31, 2005, we incurred $4,535 in defense costs, net of amounts received from insurance carriers, relative to product liability and municipal litigation." Meanwhile, gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger told the SEC in a March 11, 2005 filing: "[I]t is not probable and is unlikely that litigation, including punitive damage claims, will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company."

* The level of litigation against gun manufacturers and dealers is miniscule. From 1993-2003, 57 suits were filed against gun industry defendants, out of what the State Court Journal published by the National Center for State Courts estimates is 10 million tort suits. The aggregate damages paid in tort suits per year is $82.6 billion [U.S. Tort Costs, 2002 Update, Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, 200 figures], while damages paid in gun suits each year is $441,800, excluding unreported confidential settlements.

Yet Frist conjures up a phony nightmare scenario--no guns for our troops!--to justify passing this legislation quickly, even ahead of approving funding for the troops. Such pandering to the NRA is a sign that Frist--after months of assorted bumbling--is mighty desperate for rightwing support.