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.

Posted by David Corn at July 15, 2005 12:06 AM