Will Dems Fight Even If They Win Back Congress?

Glenn Greenwald considers this question in view of the Democrats' continuing weak-kneed acquiescence to most things Bush, including the appointment of the dangerous and dishonest General Michael Hayden to head the CIA. From the enthusiastic votes of four Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee for the man who carried out illegal domestic  wiretapping and phone record gathering, you'd never know he was an integral part of anything controversial or unconstitutional, would you?

The Democrats, rather than taking their duty as an opposition party seriously, are all too willing to toe the Republican line to avoid any intimations that they're "weak on national security." I guess the only way they can think of to show they're "strong" on national security is to praise a person who directed the NSA's illegal and unconstitutional acts and who continues to use distortions to justify it.

It's becoming a Democratic tradition to turn a blind eye to the unacceptable acts of any part of the executive branch that Bush decides can ignore the rule of law. Meaningful Congressional oversight? Not this bunch. They think being strong on national security means appeasing Bush and company regardless of how far they go to strengthen an imperial presidency.

Three Democrats on the committee voted against Hayden and should be thanked: Russ Feingold (D-WI), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Evan Bayh (D-IN). Said Feingold, "I am not convinced that the nominee respects the rule of law and Congress's oversight responsibilities." I guess the four doormats listed below could care less.

Add the names of these Senators to the Democratic Hall of Shame for voting enthusiastically for Hayden and offering praise for his nomination:

Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

Apparently speaking from some weird plane in outer space, Levin said of Hayden, "He has shown some independence and some backbone and a willingness to say no to power. You've got to have someone in this position who speaks truth to power." Rockefeller, echoing the statements of Republicans on the committee, bloviated that Hayden has "the necessary independence that is essential to restoring the C.I.A.'s credibility and stature."

As Greenwald says:

Gen. Hayden ought to have been seen as the most defiant and inflammatory nominee possible for the President to have made. He was, after all, the Director of the NSA at the time it implemented its illegal warrantless eavesdropping program as well as its massive data-collection schemes, and he is a True Believer in the theories of presidential power which hold that the President has the right to violate the law. And he wasn't nominated to be the Agriculture Secretary, but the Director of the CIA -- probably the very worst position you would want someone to occupy with that history of surveillance lawbreaking and that system of beliefs regarding the rule of law.

What was most important to the four Democrats who were cheerleaders for Hayden? Standing up to the abuse of executive power or protecting their behinds against the reliable craven right-wing noise machine? Their cowardly votes say it all. At a time when the nation needs brave and honest leaders willing to put their jobs on the line to protect the constitution, we instead seem to be infested with an abundance of self-serving hypocrites. Even within our own Party.