Double OH MY!

Ignore this post, at least the second part. Turns out it's another James Baker. Digby, who I quoted, got it wrong. Digby was relying on Wikipedia, which was wrong. Lesson learned about the Wiki, which I confirmed as well from Digby's link.

Groan

We're both sorry.

================================================
This portion of the post is accurate:

Oh my.

There's a big buzz today about the revelation that Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) proposed legislation in 2002 that would have loosened the FISA standards for foreign searches to the level the administration says it used in the illegal domestic wire tapping scandal. Here's the text of the proposal:

to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. . . .

The administration claims it needed a "reasonable cause" level vs. the current FISA law which is "probable cause", and that's why FISA procedure was ignored. This is, at least today, the spin by the administration about why they didn't go to FISA. Turns out that when DeWine proposed the legislation it was shot down by the Bush Justice Dept., specifically The Office of Intelligence Policy.

Another excuse shot down.

And that's a big story.

The following was later found to be inaccurate:

===============================================

But I think Digby looks under the rock to find the really big news. It turns out that James Baker (yes the James Baker) has been "quietly" serving as the head of the Office of Intelligence Policy since 2001. As Digby so astutely points out:

You. Do. Not. Fuck. With. Jim. Baker. Not even Rove would dare try it.

Ah oh.

If Baker was informed of the illegal wire taps and agreed to them, that's a big story and he needs to have his assed hauled before a (fill in the blank, special prosecutor, Senate investigative committee, House impeachment committee) to find out about the apparent contradiction in Justice Department policy and current support for Bush's domestic spying program. He didn't support the "reasonable cause" standard for foreign spying, why would he support it for domestic?

If Baker disagree's with what Bush has done, or even worse wasn't consulted, then Jr. may be risking the biggest grounding of his lifetime. Thus far, Baker, despite being more aligned with Pappy Bush, has been relatively silent of Bush's misbehavior. But if you screw him, you gotta wonder what actions he might take behind the scenes.

Hopefully we'll get some clue where James A. Baker III falls as Bush get's long in the tooth and public support fails. A total shot in the dark, but I wonder if he has anything to do with some other buzz about an impeachment inquiry brewing.

2006 may be a good year!