Embedded with Environmental Activists Against ANWR
 

     Felicity Barringer and Carl Hulse were embedded with environmental lobbyists during the climactic Senate vote yesterday that blocked an effort to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

     In Thursday's "Arctic Drilling Opponents Cheer Nip-and-Tuck Vote," they write: "Like rooters at a championship game, a group of two dozen environmental lobbyists whooped and exchanged high-fives in the Senate antechamber as one red-state Democrat after another fell into their column.…the cloture vote, and a 48-to-45 vote Wednesday night that actually removed the drilling provision from a Pentagon spending bill, was a triumphant moment for a group of lobbyists. Just eight months ago faced the growing possibility of defeat after two decades of opposition to drilling in the 1.5 million-acre refuge that environmentalists see as America's Serengeti, a spare wonderland of caribou, migratory birds and grizzly bears."

     Actually the proposed drilling footprint is only 2,000 acres. Columnist Jonah Goldberg visited "America's Serengeti" a while back for National Review and came back with a decidedly less worshipful view, one which didn't make the Times' coverage: "There's little doubt that for much of human history most reasonable people would have considered this spot the definition of the word 'godforsaken.'"

     The Times relates, without naming the "conservatives" involved: "Concerted opposition from moderate, and even some conservative, Republicans to Arctic drilling forced the House leadership to drop the provision from the budget bill."

     Barringer and Hulse provide the tick-tock on the plotting of the environmental lobbyists, almost as if the Times and the environmentalists were in the fight together: "After spending nearly eight months and more than $1 million on local and cable television advertising aimed at individual legislators, the lobbyists had a new job. They had to persuade Democrats in Republican-leaning states like Arkansas, North Dakota, Florida and West Virginia that they would not be inviting attacks by blocking the military bill. Nine Democrats were seen as crucial. If five of the nine voted to keep the possibility of a filibuster alive, the environmental lobbyists believed they could reach the magic threshold of 41 votes. A vote of three-fifths of the body, 60 senators, is needed to break a filibuster."

     The article concludes with the enviros victory: "In an anteroom without audible broadcasts of the proceedings in the next room, Mr. Schlickeisen and other lobbyists clustered around cellphones during the voting Wednesday. Suddenly a voice shouted, 'Lincoln,' indicating that Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, was voting against ending the filibuster. Cheers erupted. 'Pryor,' came a shout a minute later, referring to Senator Mark Pryor, another Democratic swing vote from Arkansas. Whoops swallowed up the last syllable of his name. Five of the nine swing votes fell their way."

To read the rest of Barringer and Hulse, click here.

Scraping for Outrage On the NSA Spy Scoop
 

     On Thursday, security reporter Scott Shane delivers another over-puffed story on the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance, "At Security Agency, News of Surveillance Program Gives Reassurances a Hollow Ring."

     "While a few important members of Congress were informed of the special eavesdropping program, several lawmakers have said they and the public were misled. The episode could revive old fears that the secret agency is a sort of high-tech Big Brother. It was such fears -- based on genuine abuses before the mid-1970's, hyperbolic press reports and movie myths -- that General Hayden worked to counter as the agency's director from 1999 until last April."

     Shane installs a freelance historian as his designated truth-seeker to ask loaded questions: "But many questions remain about the secret program, including some [intelligence historian Matthew] Aid said were raised pointedly by his contacts at the agency:

     "Did agency officials volunteer to perform the eavesdropping without warrants, or did the White House order it over agency objections?

     "Why was it not possible to use warrants, as the law appears to require, from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which granted 1,754 such warrants last year and did not deny a single application?

     "Or, if the court was considered too slow or cumbersome, why did the agency not ask Congress to adjust the law and legalize what it wanted to do?"

     Noel Sheppard has more context of the history of the NSA at NewsBusters.

For more of Shane on the NSA surveillance program, click here.

Israeli Security Barrier -- "New Wallpaper" for Palestinian "Prison"?
 

     Steven Erlanger gets the front page Thursday for his report from a checkpoint on Israel's security barrier between the West Bank and Jerusalem, which guards Israeli citizens from Palestinian terrorists ("Israel Is Easing Barrier Burden, But Palestinians Still See a Border").

     While noting that Israel is overhauling its separation barrier to ease "the burden on Palestinians and softening international criticism," Erlanger implies it's not good enough.

     "But for many Palestinians, the project feels like further proof of the Israeli intention to create a border, unilaterally, on occupied land, annexing territory without negotiation, undermining the viability of a future Palestinian state and putting new wallpaper on the prison in which they live. They say it is another example of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's preference for imposed solutions that suit Israel, like last summer's Israeli pullout from Gaza and the barrier itself, which incorporates numerous Israeli settlements on occupied land, settlements much of the world regards as illegal."

     The text box underlines that pro-Palestinian perception: "Easier passage for people and goods, or just new wallpaper for the prison?"

     Erlanger gives the Israeli army a chance to respond: "Daniel Tirza, a reserve colonel who has drawn the map for nearly every inch of the 450-mile barrier (about one-third complete and due to be finished in a year) has no doubt that it has saved hundreds of Israeli lives by making it harder for suicide bombers to reach their targets. The barrier not only discourages attacks, he said, but when, as in most of its length, it consists of electronic fencing with sensors, it provides enough warning to catch those who cut through it."

     But there's more emphasis on the "humiliating" experience of Palestinians: "Current checkpoints were thrown together in 2000 after the violent Palestinian uprising, known as the second intifada. The experience, monitored by various groups like Machsom Watch (machsom means checkpoint in Hebrew), is often humiliating, with young soldiers sometimes treating individuals with contempt."

     There's an interesting bout of semantics -- is the checkpoint a barrier or a wall? "Israel insists that the barrier is a security device and not a provisional border, and that it will be moved to account for Israeli court orders or a peace treaty. The Palestinians say it separates them from their neighbors and their land, annexing large parts of the West Bank. Although only 5 percent of the barrier is made of concrete wall (the rest is fencing and electronic sensors), Palestinians routinely call the barrier the wall."

     (As Mediacrity reported two months ago, Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner may share that Palestinian mindset. Bonner replied to a reader's critical email by saying: "There is indeed a tall concrete wall through large parts of Jerusalem.")

For more Erlanger on the security barrier, click here.