Special Comment: Olbermann Challenges Obama To Do The Right Thing On FISA
By Logan Murphy Sunday Jun 29, 2008 10:00pm
Download | play 
Download | play
Keith Olbermann presented Barack Obama with a few options on how to handle the pending FISA legislation in a Special Comment on Monday's Countdown.
Senator Obama had once said he was against giving immunity to telecom companies who assisted the Bush administration in illegally spying on American citizens, but more recently has said he would, in fact, vote for the FISA legislation, immunity included. As Keith points out, Obama has taken political hits from the right and the left and the right is going to attack him no matter how he votes, so he might as well do the right thing and demand telecom immunity be stripped from the bill.
You've already taken the political hit from the Right, for saying you'd seek to strip out, or rescind immunity. You've already taken the political hit from the Left, for saying you'd vote for the FISA bill even with the immunity. You've paid the political price in advance.
Now buy yourself -- and those who have most ardently supported you -- something worth more than just class action suits against Verizon.
Explain that you are standing aside on civil immunity, not just for political expediency, but for a greater and more tangible good -- the holding to account, of the most-corrupt, the most dangerous, and the most anti-democracy presidential administration in our long history.
Of course, if you disagree with this interpretation -- if you think the FISA bill doesn't have the giant loophole, or if you don't think you, as president, would be ready to support criminal prosecution of... well, criminals -- then your duty is clear.
Vote against the FISA bill, if it still carries that immunity.
Full transcripts below the fold:
Finally, as promised, a Special Comment on FISA and the Junior Senator from Illinois.
The Democratic leadership in the Senate, Republican knuckle-dragging in the same chamber, and the mediocre skills of whoever wrote the final version of the FISA bill, have combined to give Senator Barack Obama a second chance to make a first impression.
And he damned well better take it.
The Senate vote on this tortured and reckless piece of legislation has now been postponed until after the 4th of July break.
The Democrats, completing their FISA experience (a collective impression of Homer Simpson falling off a cliff and hitting every bramble on the way down), didn't exactly plan this fortuitous delay.
Last week, the vote on their cave-in was imminent.
But, while arguing over a piece of housing legislation, about how many mortgage lenders can dance on the head of a pin, Republicans dithered so long about protecting their constituents -- the banks -- that the Senate calendar got backed up.
This, in turn, gave Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid some time to think.
There was one among his group, chosen to run for President, who had loudly assailed the idea of handing a get-out-of-jail-free card to corporations who had approached definitional fascism by breaking the law in concert with the Bush Administration.
But this Senator had suddenly realized, that to the large group of voters who operate with an information base that would make Cliffs Notes look like the encyclopedia, if, in the final vote, he stood against FISA, he would hand them a rock with which they could hit him over the head, a rock wrapped up in a piece of paper reading:
"Obama voted uh-uh... thing terror stop."
Thus, Senator Obama, was born your first second chance.
Senator Reid was kind enough to help you out by composing an amendment that would keep FISA -- which you rightly endorse -- but strips out the telecom immunity, which you rightly oppose.
It's a protest -- a decidedly lame one -- but in our daily world of political transactions, voting for the amendment when it has no chance of passing and has been in essence constructed as pure Obama CYA -- that is a petty crime.
Whether it will do more to harm your premise of "new politics" than to your credibility as an immunity-opponent, is for you, Senator, to assess. And live with.
It would be sweet to have a pure, politics-free president, but the last of those retired from office in 1797.
And while we've all quoted the farewell address of "The Father Of Our Nation" for 211 years now, nobody seems to want to remember that its point was to urge his children that: whatever you do, for God's sake, don't form political parties -- some day they will kill you.
Anyway, Senator, your problem here isn't the backlash about telecom immunity, and it isn't really about your political fluidity on the FISA bill.
Your problem is what happens even if this plays out according to plan next week:
1) You vote for the anti-immunity amendment.
2) The anti-immunity amendment fails.
3) You vote for the FISA legislation.
And 4) The FISA legislation passes.
Oh, and, 5) Senator: The Republicans still run against you with the 'elections-for-dummies ' message: "Obama voted uh-uh... thing terror-stop."
Because, inside the obscenity that was Charlie Black's comment about how a terrorist attack in this country would be good -- good for his boy McCain's chances for election...Inside the inhuman calculation that Benazhir Bhutto did not die in vain -- she helped McCain in the New Hampshire primary...There is a sad and cynical reality.
The Republicans can scare some of the people all of the time, and they can scare all of the people some of the time.
This is all they are right now.
Nobody ever said it better than did Aaron Sorkin in his script for the movie "The American President":
"Whatever your particular problem is, friend, I promise you, Bob Rumson (and for Bob Rumson, read "John McCain") is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: Making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it."
Republicans, with almost no exceptions, have no true credibility on counter-terrorism, no track record of prevention or amelioration, and their president can't even remember the name of the skyscraper he claims to have saved in Los Angeles.
And yet, somehow, the Republicans have managed to convince the public that it doesn't matter that Mr. Bush had already completed 22 percent of his first term, when he, his administration, and his party, failed so catastrophically on 9/11.
The President and party who were at fault, were magically transformed into the President and party who would never let it happen again.
An unjust... repellant... nefarious, trick. But, politically, rather a neat trick.
Senator, the Republicans are going to paint you as soft on terror no matter how you vote on FISA. Or how you vote on the Telecom Immunity Amendment. Or on the next farm bill.
Last week it was Grover Norquist calling you "John Kerry with a tan." By November 1st, it'll be Dick Cheney calling you "Osama Bin Laden with a tan."
When you announced your support of this latest FISA bill (with or without the telecom immunity), the Republicans actually raced to get out a press release accusing you of flip-flopping.
You shared the exact same position, on which they are running their entire campaign and they criticized you anyway!
So, Senator, from their point of view, they think they've got you boxed in.
Vote for FISA and you've contradicted yourself.
Vote against FISA and it's "Obama voted uh-uh... thing terror-stop."
Vote for FISA and against immunity, and it's political expediency, and Democrats soft on terror, and "Obama voted uh-uh... thing terror-stop."
This is a problem, Senator.
Because, flatly, of all the measures that can be taken to aid our damaged nation, and our de-valued Constitution, the first, if not the foremost, is not blocking telecom immunity, but making sure no Republican is in the White House past noon next January 20th.
Of all the remedial efforts against the Bush administration's high crimes and misdemeanors, and of all the prophylactic steps against further inroads against the freedoms of the citizens of this nation and the rights of everyone else, the primary step must still come to us through the prism of politics.
Would that it were otherwise. But it ain't.
Frankly, Senator, this political tight-rope act you've tried on FISA the last two weeks, which from the outside seems to have been intended to increase the chances of your election, probably hasn't helped that chance in the slightest.
There is, fortunately, a possible -- a most unexpected -- solution.
Your second second chance.
Since the final version of the FISA bill was passed down from on high, John Dean has been reading it, and re-reading it, and cross-referencing it with other relevant law, and thinking.
Something bothered him about it.
Or, more correctly, something didn't bother him about it.
Turns out lawyers at the ACLU have been doing the same thing for the last ten days.
John compared notes with them, and will be devoting his column at "Find Law" this week, to this unlikely conclusion:
The Republicans who wrote most of this bill at Mr. Bush's urging, managed to immunize the telecoms from civil suits.
But not from criminal prosecution.
Senator, here is John Dean's summary of his findings, which he sent me this morning.
"It is clear not only from the language of the bill (which must be read in the context of other, related statutes to be clearly understood), but also from the legislative history, that there is absolutely no criminal immunity for anyone in these FISA amendments."
Moreover, Senator, it seems as if a lot of people have known this, for a long time.
During the January 24th, 2008 debate in the Senate, Senator Brownback noted, "The immunity provisions would not apply to the Government or Government officials. Cases against the Government regarding the alleged programs would continue. And the provisions would apply only to civil and not criminal cases."
In fact, Senator, just last week, Attorney General Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence McConnell sent a letter, for the record, to House Speaker Pelosi emphasizing that the liability protection, quote, "does not immunize any criminal conduct."
And if you ask, Senator, about the President responding to all this by belching out a series of pardons or a blanket pardon to those who broke the law on his behalf, Dean has you covered here, too...
It... "would require acceptance by them of the fact that they had broken the law, and thus be an admission of guilt.
"And a blanket pardon would be an admission by Bush that his war on terror has been a lawless undertaking, operating beyond the bounds of the Constitution and statutes that check the powers of the president and the executive branch.
"It would be an admission by Bush, too, of his own criminal culpability (which is why Nixon refused to grant his aides a pardon.)
Senator -- sometimes it is better to be lucky, than good.
Keep your eye on the wording of the legislation to make sure the Republicans don't realize its flaws.
Then vote for the amendment to strip telecom immunity out of the FISA bill.
Then after that fails, vote for the FISA bill, if that's your final answer.
Then the minute the president has signed the FISA bill, you announce that you voted for it because it renews FISA and because it permits a bigger prize than just civil suits; that it allows for criminal prosecution of past illegal eavesdropping.
Say, loudly, that your understanding of this bill is such, that if you are elected, your Attorney General will begin a full-scale criminal investigation of the telecom companies who collaborated with President Bush in eavesdropping on Americans.
And mention -- oh by the way -- that your Attorney General will subpoena such records, notes, e-mail, data, and testimony, from any and all Bush Administration officials, FBI or CIA personnel, or any members of the Executive Branch, who may have as much as breathed in the general direction of these nefarious acts of domestic spying at Mr. Bush's behest.
Wait -- you say there's a political hit waiting for you there too? Another "Obama voted uh-uh... thing terror-stop."?
Actually, Senator, you've already gone down this road, when you spoke to my colleague, Will Bunch, of the Philadelphia Daily News, on April 14th of this year.
He asked about the possibility of criminal investigations of the 43rd President and his henchmen.
"What I would want to do," you told him, "is have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out, are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that, because we don't have access to all the material right now."
"You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."
"Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is: nobody above the law. And I think that's roughly how I would look at it."
Make this clear, Senator.
You've already taken the political hit from the Right, for saying you'd seek to strip out, or rescind immunity. You've already taken the political hit from the Left, for saying you'd vote for the FISA bill even with the immunity. You've paid the political price in advance.
Now buy yourself -- and those who have most ardently supported you -- something worth more than just class action suits against Verizon.
Explain that you are standing aside on civil immunity, not just for political expediency, but for a greater and more tangible good -- the holding to account, of the most-corrupt, the most dangerous, and the most anti-democracy presidential administration in our long history.
Of course, if you disagree with this interpretation -- if you think the FISA bill doesn't have the giant loophole, or if you don't think you, as president, would be ready to support criminal prosecution of... well, criminals -- then your duty is clear.
Vote against the FISA bill, if it still carries that immunity.
The Republicans are going to call you the names any which way, Senator.
They're going to cry regardless, Senator.
And as the old line goes: give them something to cry about.
Good night, and good luck.
EXCELLENT!
Anybody read Wes Clark's new book UNFIT FOR COMMAND.
It's a pretty good read.
I wish he'd challenge him to do the right thing all around.
Too bad politicians so rarely do the right thing. Let's see if Obama can defy the odds.
Obama is naive if he thinks for one minute that McShame and the repugs will play nice. That isn't in their playbook. Ain't going to happen. They will keep doing their dirty tricks and Obama will keep saying he won't play like that. Who do you think the loser is?
There may well be a November, not October, surprise. I am not nearly as confident as I was a couple of months ago.
Ok, Kieth Olbermann thread is up. Time for Paul Revere to ride.
"The Trolls are coming! The Trolls are coming!"
I lay this mess squarely at the feet of Pelosi. She could of stopped it coming up to vote until after the next election.
Very good "Special Comment". I hope Obama watched or or someone makes him watch it.
I believe we can give up on Obama doing the right thing. I was wrong. He is just another politician moving to the center right. Another choice between Republican right wing and Democratic right wing.
It's good to see KeithO has woken up.
harley @ 7:
I blame us. Somehow we have failed to participate in our democracy to the extent that we have absolutely no influence on events, policies and laws that happen in our name, with our tax money that should never even been considered let alone acted upon. We have failed our country and we sit here and wring our hands and continue to fail it.
FUCK YEAH!!!
After their recess, I guess the Republicans will be offering an amendment to button up the "civil suit" loophole!
Keith did well, very articulate and reasoned. I agree with #7, here is our House Dems caving and passing a bad deal along. They had what? 24 hours to try and read through that crappily written bill and vote?
theWalrus @ 13:
This bill reminds me a lot of a magic show. While we are looking over here at what the magician wants us to see we are missing the true nature of the trick.
xoites defends Constituion @ 11:
I called, emailed and sent a fax to every Democrat senator after it passed so easy in the house. I tried to call into CSPAN 4 times but was never put on. I am sure the next time I try to fly I will be pulled asided to get the rubber glove treatment.
Jackibama @ 14:
THEY GOT A BREAK! BY ACCIDENT! As KO pointed out, the schedule slipped in their favor. We'll see...
Obama? Are you listening? America is speaking to you!
As I heard it the civil suit loophole does not mitigate any criminal liability. They can't afford to do that!
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 18:
he threw clark and MoveOn under the bus today. It doesn't bode well.
It's good to hear Keith Olbermann admit that voting for this bill won't make the Republicans less likely to accuse Obama of being 'soft on terrorism', also interesting to hear him frame Obama's potential strategies in terms of 'the greater good.'
To some degree it may be said that Olbermann is at least listening to other viewpoints and participating in the debate reasonably. And bickering between himself and Glen Greenwald aside, the facts are there for all to see: the ball is in Obama's court, and how he plays it will significantly shape his chances for success in rallying the electorate to vote him into office.
xoites defends Constituion @ 6:
what can they say thet we haven't?
nevermind.
harley @ 16:
And that is my point. The phone calls, the emails and whatever else we have been doing just is not enough. We need to put our heads together and find something new that will actually work. Doing the same thing over and over again and getting the same lousy results in not exactly a sign of sanity. Human beings are the most intelligent and most adaptable creatures on the planet. It is time for us to adapt.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 22:
Excellent point. I am as angry with him as most everyone else is.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 17:
Yeah, hope is a frigid bitch in the Democratic party. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
I will say this...go back and look at the Nixon impeachment...it looked like it would never happen until the moment it did. So, as one of the hopeless, I am holding out for my country to do great things again.
Keith hit that one out of the park!
Besides the centerpiece (that immunity from criminal prosecution is not granted in the FISA bill and Obama should use that fact to his - and our nation's - advantage) I liked this quote the most.
Obama certainly did throw Clark and Move On under the bus. After throwing Rev. Wright and his church under the bus. By the time the convention gets here he might better take matching funds. He might not get that much more money. The people that bankrolled him are not feeling so good about him anymore.
I believe Greenwald should not have had the public fight. KO puts together some brilliant rants. Speech and content of that quality takes time and Greenwald did not give KO time to compose the work we heard tonight.
So greenwald, if your cronies are reading this blog: YOU GOT WHAT YOU WANT, SO SHUT THE FUCK UP!
I emailed Obama and told him no money this month in protest of his FISA flip flop. The bottom line is we need to avoid another Repub administration for the sake of moving the Supreme Court back to center at least. I have consistently said that we will still have to hold Obama's feet to the fire. Keep up the progressive mantra K.O.
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 25:
He was never impeached. He was told to resign by the Republican Party.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 20:
maybe your right i didn't think clark went under the bus....obama wants to say the same thing clark said there are people who can't handle that truth/appraoch...clark makes a point i agree with and i believe it will get SOME people to think twice about their vote for mcBush
SassySandy @ 27:
AND RIGHTEOUSLY SO!
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 20:
He throw all of us under the bus when he flipped flopped on FISA. The reason I voted for him in the primary was he pledged to fillbuster FISA.
Sad, KO has to beg his candidate he pimped to do the right thing.
Geez.
SassySandy @ 9:
I agree. People need to stop looking at this thing like left vs right because it's not. It's about constitutional vs anti-constitutional. I just can't trust the democratic party anymore. They got their precious majority in 2006 but what has it amounted to? The republicans might just as well have won the 2006 elections because Bush has most of the powers he needs to secretly spy on Americans and wage war on Iran. If there was ever an election when we needed to look beyond the two party system then it's this one.
Voting yes even without the immunity is a detriment for our constitution.
We have moron right-wingers coming out in DROVES saying how awesome it is the constitution was upholded when gun rights were upheld.
That's fine... Now let's uphold obtaining a warrant and habeas corpus too. Things that actually seriously matter for our freedom.
getalife @ 34:
See comment 6.
xoites defends Constituion @ 30:
He was about to. the senate repugs went to him and told him that they would have had to convict him. then he resigned. but you are right about that fact. they should have impeached him before allowing Ford to pardon him.
Who are you going to believe, your lying ears or…
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
There is a lot more wrong with this bill than just telecom immunity.
Obama has painted himself into a corner.
xoites defends Constituion @ 23:
The problem is Pelosi. She spent 10 minutes in the House making White House talking points on why FISA should pass as is.
"It is not perfect, but the best we are going to get".
xoites defends Constituion @ 23:
We could all secede.
xoites defends Constituion @ 37:
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 22:
you were right, Xoites.
MountainMan23 @ 41:
I think with the Patriot Act you asking for a Club Gitmo all expense vacation.
Alice X (Chomsky Nader) @ 39:
as per KO< he may as well fight. They are going to slap him either way.
harley @ 40:
No, the problem is US! This is our country. We are sitting on our hands and blaming elected officials who don't give a rat's ass about us for not giving a rat's ass about us.
We need to grow up and get a move on! We have thingsd to do and we are not doing shit!
Did even John Dean forget that a president can pardon anyone he wants to from criminal charges?
Civil suits were the only means to go after this issue that Bush couldn't duck his way out of.
Agree with last few posters about "money"...it was young voters and the grass roost that helped him beat one of the most powerful political machines in history with small donations....it's like he's a different person now discarding the enthusiastic supporters who helped him achieve the unachievable. He's putting out the fire by pissing all over it.
At the rate he's going it's going to be another lesser of two evil election.
harley @ 43:
Filling the jails brought Civil Rights for African Americans.
xoites defends Constituion @ 37:
Do you think Clinton would toss a great General under the bus?
Who is next?
Never been prouder to support Hillary Clinton.
Troll that.
wow........i'm going to get in the way of the bus and get this over with.....i don't want the telecoms to get immunity....mostly because i believe bush and cheney stepped over the line......impeachable
as far as clark goes i agree with him and think i barack obliquely reduced the negativity that the talking heads were going to put on it....what clark said and how it would be interpreted is what obama was refering to...
clark wasn't disrespectful but some will put that spin on it to get the reaction they want....obama opposed the obvious neg spin before it got out of control and was used against him
Also, KO now has to call GG "Daddy."
High time for GG to get some TV face time for prodding KO to do the right thing.
getalife @ 49:
You are doing fine on your own.
I love you Keith! Will you marry me?
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 32:
I agree. I gave to his campaign the first of June and was intending to give in July, but now do not think I will unless I start feeling better about him.
I'm all for Obama and the Democrats spying on Republicans once they get in office.
I'm not sure why you crybabies can't understand that.
He ain't going to play to the independents by 'seeming un-American'
So we should give Obama a pass on FISA because it might be theoretically possible to criminally prosecute? Gosh, its worked out so well since 06: the Democrats stopping the occupation and holding Bush accountable for anything.
No.
The whole bill is corrupt. It says, "If the president says x is legal, then it's legal."
It's a bad anti-constitution, anti-rule of law bill.
Harry Reid needs to go. He should never have allowed this bad bill into the schedule.
All KO comments aside, the criminal prosecution piece made hopeful by Clark is a pipedream. The thing GWB & Co. want avoided at all costs is discovery. Without discovery in court there is no accountability. And it will happen again.
Obama won't vote the right way. I want him to, but after his comments today re patriotism, re MoveOn, etc., it is clear that he won't.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! Says: Dahgrostab’ph-r-i @ 18: Obama? Are you listening? America is speaking to you! he threw clark and MoveOn under the bus today. It doesn’t bode well.
=================
Sadly. If he keeps going in this direction, I'm staying home on voting day.
Please don't make me do that Obama.
ps Keith could have done more good inviting Glenn Greenwald on for the whole show.
Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s @ 55:
You may be but i am not. You may be for the United States killing the people that you hate, but i am not for the United States killing the people that i hate. This may be a foriegn concept to you but it is the basis of law. If you want to live in a society that respects your rights you had better start thinking about respecting the rights of others or your moral integrity goes right into the slop bucket.
The bottom line is Obama can't afford to break with his supporters on this issue. He's going to need to keep up the flow of donations now that he's decided to forgo public financing. If his supporters collectively threaten to withhold donations, he has no choice but to listen.
Martin Gifford @ 57:
I totally agree.
getalife @ 49:
Unfortunately, yes. She probably would.
Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s @ 55:
Its called integrity and its apparently what you lack.
David @ 62:
I don't give a flying fuck at this point what Obama wants or needs. He will get my vote because the alternative is worse. He will get nothing more until he changes his course.
zm @ 56:
wow paper thin majority handed a bunch of shxt from prior congress.....this congress has dealing with cough up the money up or you don't support the troops,signing statements,secrecy,veto,lieberman,perpetual politicizing
they had this congress with backs against the wall we are going to get our turn if we are patient and think alittle out of the box....the military industrial complex isn't going to roll over mccain has a lot of power and money behind......if barack goes completely liberal totally oppose mccain on everything were screwed the u.s. culture has been conservative i hate it personally the no fear rude bullshit but's not like a light switch just turn it off...the NEOCONS have been three steps ahead of us on everything
jake3988 @ 59:
You shouldn't stay home on election day because Obama or any other candidate "disappointed" you. Look at other candidates in other parties or running independently, do some research, then make up your mind. Voting your conscience even if it adds up to nothing is still better than actually doing nothing.
karl @ 67:
Time to catch up.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 32:
They probably feel he's sold them a false bill of goods, now that he has the nomination in his hip pocket.
He would do well to remember what happened to Ned Lamont after he rested upon his laurels when he defeated Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Senate Primary. Lamont took a vacation, Lieberman went Indy and now sits in the Senate, turd that he is.
If Obama doesn't want to go the same route, he'd better wise up so he can rise up.
Shade Tail @ 64:
Of course she would. She threw us all under the bus when she voted for the war.
I knew what she was about. I was hoping Obama was better. Guess not.
xoites defends Constituion @ 30:
Technically, he was impeached... he was brought up to a hearing, which is an impeachment.... he was never successfully impeached, that is, removed from office. ;P
Wise_Fool @ 72:
I beg to differ. Look it up.
xoites defends Constituion @ 48:
I've watched the news of gas price protests in Europe. Truckers blocking major arteries, refusing to delivery anything - including gasoline.
I've seen the news of 100,000 people in Seoul Korea protesting their government's decision to allow US beef to be sold in Korea again. Several hundred protesters and police injured.
Not too long ago the people of France rose up and shut down the nation when their government tried to rewrite their labor rights.
Maybe it's time we took a clue ..
It was mentioned upthread that if we threaten to cut off donations to Obama, he'd have no choice but to listen to us. That would be true, except he has corporations donating major payola, but it was disguised as netroots fundraising.
That's not to say that all of his money didn't come from the netroots, but if he keeps pissing off his base, we'll soon see who keeps his race financed.
I have a question I really really want to hear Obama answer...
What would America look like today if Richard Nixon had succeeded in pushing legislation through Congress which legalized breaking and entering?
It's not a hard question. Somebody answer it.
In a comment on alternet, someone said
...and us progressives* are dutifully picking through the soup with tweezers, thinking that if we work hard enough we can make the soup edible again. Any rational person would just dump the ruined shit outside the back door and start over.
* I still prefer 'liberals', abandonment of that label is just another example of the left rolling over, begging for the fascists to pleeeease scratch our tummy
I'm from Chicago and I truly believe I am one of Obama's strongest supporters, but this FISA bill capitulation is DEAD WRONG on every level. I will still support Obama but he must show leadership and the strength of character to risk his winning the Presidency in standing against this bill...yes Sen. Obama, this is a "change" moment.
Impeachment History
xoites defends Constituion @ 66:
we have to let him know we are going to get him in but we will not have this bull shit once he is there......bush didn't need to change FISA in the first place this is a trap.....and yes it is a fxxk you to the masses
obama has his gauge needle in the middle he hasn't forgotten us....he isn't letting any of this FEAR tactic stick..that's very hard to do when your at war.....one guy is said to be in uniform and the other guy is said to be naked...find some studies about humans under the stress of fear......if mccain gets in we are in big trouble
SassySandy @ 71:
I doubt Obama will get out of Iraq if he wins.
Guss is that Obama will catch the "chicken-hak" flu from fellow Senators that mysteriously develops whenever something contentious or controvesial appears.
as devil's advocate. what damage that has to be undone may require thet the presidink have special super powers to unearth the crimes and to aggressively reshape the gubmint.