Our Latest Stories:

In his address to the Senate on December 17, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd had this to say about proposed legislation to immunize from judicial review any specified or unspecified program to engage in surveillance against the American people using telecommunications data mining:

If we are to do our Constitutionally-mandated job, we need more than token oversight; we need full hearings on the terrorist surveillance program before the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

Without that, we remain in the dark—and in the dark we’re expected to grant the president’s wish, because he knows best.

Does that sound familiar to any of my colleagues?

In 2002, we took the president’s word and voted to go to war on faulty intelligence. What if we took his word again—and found, next year or the year after, that we had blindly legalized grave crimes?

If this disastrous war has taught us anything, it is that the Senate must never again stack such a momentous decision on such a weak foundation of fact. The decision we’re asked to make today is not, of course, as immense. But between fact and decision, the disproportion is just as huge.

In 2002, Senator Dodd made a big mistake: he trusted George W. Bush’s assertion that there was slam-dunk evidence of large numbers of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Assuming that George W. Bush knew best given the classified data available to him, Chris Dodd voted to give George W. Bush authorization to go to war against Iraq. That was a mistake. A big mistake. A huge mistake. A tremendous mistake.

But now this is 2007, and Senator Dodd has been asked again to give George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt when Bush tells him and other members of Congress that the President absolutely must have the power to spy on Americans without a warrant in order to stave off a terrorist attack … but won’t share the proof that such powers are necessary, and won’t even tell the Congress what sort of spying on American has been done. He has the proof, and he has the need, Bush says, and he could show you the proof and the need if he wanted to, but he doesn’t want to, because of the terrorist threat that’s so huge it demands unprecedented power but so classified the Congress can’t see evidence of.

It’s a circular argument with no basis in reality provided. It’s ridiculous on its face. But the majority in the Congress, I’m sad to say, is falling for George W. Bush’s ruse all over again. They are unwilling to learn from their past mistakes. It is the hallmark of a progressive politician that she or he is willing to reconsider past positions, is willing to engage in re-examination of evidence, of logic and of principles. Every person makes mistakes. A progressive should engage in an examination of past mistakes for flaws in thinking and flaws in evidence. That’s part of what makes a progressive part of the “Reality-Based Community” that the Bush administration once so mockingly derided.

When you examine the past and the present of the presidential candidates, it would be ideal to find a candidate who has always been right on every issue. But although some candidates may protest otherwise, you’ll never find such a candidate no matter how hard you keep looking. What’s more important to look for is the pattern in how a candidate has gone about making decisions in the past. Has she or he followed the herd or questioned authority? Has she or he relied on sound bites or sound thinking? When a candidate has shifted position, why? Is your candidate capable of learning and growing while maintaining adherence to the principles that work best and matter most? These aren’t easy standards for a candidate to satisfy. But then again, leading the most powerful nation on the globe is not an easy job.

(Source: Speech of Chris Dodd before the Senate on December 17 2007)