There's quite a flame war going on between Glenn Greenwald and Keith Olbermann over Obama's support for the FISA bill. Glenn criticized Olbermann for making a fierce anti-telecom immunity statement only a short time ago, then turning around and praising the new bill.
Olbermann goes on Daily Kos and defends himself by quoting John Dean:
John said his reading of the revised FISA statute suggested it was so poorly constructed (or maybe so sublimely constructed) that it clearly did not preclude future criminal prosecution of the telecoms - it only stopped civil suits.
I have repeated his observation each night since. Maybe I didn't sell my conviction of its conclusiveness. I think John Dean is worth 25 Glenn Greenwalds (maybe 26 Keith Olbermanns).
But I contacted John Dean, and I don't think he's saying what Olbermann thinks he's saying:
I said that when I read the bill, and talked to the folks at the ACLU who had been following it, that it was not clear. I raised it when appearing on Countdown with the hope that someone might figure it out. But that is the nature of this badly drafted bill that it is not clear what it does and does not do, and the drafters are not saying.
But even if the bill is unclear there is no question the Bush Administration is not going to do anything to the telecoms, so the question is whether a future DOJ could -- and here there is case law protecting the telecoms. But there may be language buried in the bill that protects them as well but it can only be found by reading the bill with a half dozen other laws which I have not yet done.
I made no declarative statements rather I only raised questions that jumped at me when reading the 114 page monster.
[T]o give Obama a pass on his support for such a heinous bill -- one which Dean himself describes as a grave assault on the Constitution -- based on this imagined secret plan for the Good that Obama is harboring is to illustrate exactly the sort of blind faith in political leaders that is so dangerous. That's been the Right's mentality to excuse every last thing Bush does....No political leader deserves that sort of blind faith -- not Bush and not Obama. That's how a small child thinks about his Daddy, not how a citizen should think about a political leader.
It's also interesting to note that the tools created to help organize Obama supporters against his opponents are now being used to organize themselves to communicate with him. There's a new group on "MyBarackObama.com" called "Senator Obama -- Please Vote Against FISA."
Stop by and tell the Senator that you'll be voting for him in November and hoping that in the meantime, he does the right thing.
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
Hi Jane! So, what’s with the hair?;-)
Thanks for clarifying Jane.
hey. great job w/ barr. i said the orther day, q few weeksa ago I would have imagined you two quite te odd couple. disappointed in BO as is everyone. gotta call sen. spaceman who is probably worthless.
I might be willing to sign up with that group. TPM say’s it’s very fast-growing, so I guess a lot of people are unhappy but willing to stay with him.
We shouldn’t have to have this sort of organization - to tell the presumed candidate that it’s going off on the wrong track. It sounds like he’s getting a lot of advice from the DLC/DCCC/DSCC with their ‘you have to appeal to the moderate Republicans’ (all three of them?) mindset, which has screwed us over and won so many elections in the last generation or so.
I get tired of the people who keep saying that we need to be more like the GOoPers, with strong party discipline, kicking people out who won’t stick to the party line. They seem to be not seeing where that leads, with the prime example right in front of their eyes. The Democrats could use a little more party discipline, true (JoeL and the Blue Dogs come to mind), but do we really want to be like the Rs?
Thanks for checking this out, Jane!
Dean seems to be walking back a bit from what he was saying on Countdown.
you’re right. why be like them. their campaign seems pretyty fucked up at present. but it’s VERY early and no telling what’ll happen as they get more desparate. well, i think we know what’ll happen……………..
Your closing is particularly good.
Obama’s stand on this critical issue in no way diminishes my support.
There are too many other critical issues: the war, the SCOTUS, etc.
Obama is engaging in a particular political calculus, which I think may be based on a faulty premise (or two).
He needs our help here.
I just want to thank everyone… Keith, Glenn, John and Jane, among others. This is an excellent example of the new “open” media.
I wouldn’t mind at all if we had more unabashed liberals like the late Metzenbaum of Ohio, and a real arm-twister like LBJ would be great.
Obama is running for president. Most americans would rather be safe than free- and he is speaking accordingly. No great mystery I am afraid.
hey firedogs,
from a purely political theater standpoint - why does he support the Bill ?
everyone knows it’s going to pass. he had nothing to lose in supporting it - he’s already proven himself more than able to pushback on the terra meme
so why did he do it ? is he using our disappointment to show everyone else he’s not with the libruls, are we his bloody shirt?
yeah. won’ twa;k away from te guy over something like this. his vote won’t change anything and he’ll get trashed by them for it.
meant “walk away”
In the OJ trial the criminal case went nowhere but the family won in a civil suit because the rules for getting a conviction are easier. By knocking out the civil suits then you make finding Bush guilty of anything harder.
Also who cares about the telecoms I see us sueing the telecoms as a means to force them to talk about everything Bush forced them to do.
Rather than appear anti business when we might not have a reason to lets put the focus on Bush.
I may be the only commenter at this site who never watched Keith Olbermann but I have to say we in the left blogosphere tend to look for heroes. And we are mightily disappointed when those we lionize do not meet our expectations.
We need to apply the same critical processes on figures on the left that we do on the right. Kneejerk supporters whether they supported Clinton or, in the case of Olbermann and Huffington, Obama lessen their own credibility because they do not apply the same standards to their own candidate that they apply to others.
Still thinking about spending my stimulus check on the ACLU.
Thanks for the link on the Obama group — just joined.
There’s a vote over at HuffPo on who’s right? KO or GG. I voted for GG and then saw that it was KO 49% to GG 44% at that moment in time. I think the rift is about whether or not KO is really being objective about Obama.
I thought the same thing.
Ain’t that the truth.
All that said, Obama is a much better leader than McCain by a long shot. But no leader can please everyone all the time.
It does take a pro to piss everyone off all the time, though. Bush will go down in history for that!
If you’d like to vote, you can jump over here at HuffPo, (but do come back!)
It’s a false choice. The mystery to me is why you repeat it as credible. Liberty secured, is security. Destroying liberty leaves no security.
Great Minds do think alike:)
I think his last
Special Commentrant about Senator Clinton took care of that problem with most of da hippies - the clear thinking ones anyway :DIt seems so out of character for Obama to support something like FISA, which means he’s really only doing it for political reasons. The problem with this situation is that this is exactly what Obama strives to stop.
I definitely can’t support his decision in this. November is a few months away, not sure how I will feel about him then. Definitely not choosing McCain though, thats for sure.
Let em hash it out - more power to them. Greenwald, Olberman and Dean normalized speaking out when others ran for cover.
Yep.
It is a nice change from the usual screeching Wingnuts though.
Well said. Totally agree.
I said that when I read the bill, and talked to the folks at the ACLU who had been following it, that it was not clear. I raised it when appearing on Countdown with the hope that someone might figure it out. But that is the nature of this badly drafted bill that it is not clear what it does and does not do, and the drafters are not saying
Just how bad does a bill have to be if John Dean is unclear what it means? Does Obama really know what he is supporting, can any Senator Dem or GOP explain what this bill means? I don’t think you should be allowed to vote for a bill if you don’t understand it.
1,685 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hamsher:
Thanx for the link to the “new” Obama page “Senator Obama - Please Vote Against FISA”…I joined and will report back on the emails I get from these folks but it’s not jest enough to beg the good Senator to vote against the bill, he must WORK against it and use his considerable clout and visibility (and money machine) to organize opposition in his own party. I have had two discussions with Obama staff in the last 2-3 dayz about this and have told them that my family will not contribute one more dime until we have the Senator on record not only opposing the bill but lendin’ his presence to the fight to strip immunity from this abomination.
I am convinced that there is a lot more high level political calculus bein run in the rarefied air that we common folk don’t reach or even espire to and that there is still time to kill this thing. If that happens and Obama is on board, it will insure an Obama victory in November but more importantly, it will put the people back leading the leader to where they wanna go.
KEEP THE FAITH, THE CURE FOR A SICK DEMOCRACY IS MORE DEMOCRACY!!
anybody got a link to the text of the proposed Act? I found something in it the other night that I think contradicts Dean…
ThingsComeUndone I agree…
Such should have been the case with the PATRIOT ACT…
I’ll never forget what Dennis Kucinich said in the primary debates:
“I voted against the PATRIOT act because I actually read it!”
It seems so out of character for Obama to support something like FISA, which means he’s really only doing it for political reasons.
I agree but what political reasons Obama is ahead in the polls, has way more money than McCain and supporting this bill puts that in jeopardy. So what does he gain politically by supporting this? Is Obama being blackmailed?
My guess would be he’s trying to show that hes somehow “tough on terror” by supporting this.
But who knows, I’ve been known to be wrong about these things.
Unfortunately, Obama probably hasn’t spent a fraction of the amount of time thinking about FISA as the average pup here. (Not that he’s stupid, or anything. Just busy with other priorities). I can’t imagine a legitimate scenario in which he votes for FISA now and gets his DOJ to prosecute crimes later.
I heard a “talking point” that without this crappy bill, that is, by doing “nothing” or by filibustering, FISA is not in effect. This was from a “liberal” journalist on the Randi Rhodes show last night. This didn’t seem correct to me. He claimed that we are not in accordance with the 4th amendment w/o FISA and therefore w/o this new bill.
Sorry I missed his name. He was really taking Feingold to task…
Is this correct?
Give me a break, Obama’s a constitutional lawyer. He knows way more about this than anyone here, with the possible exception of Christy and looseheadprop.
pdf warning 114 pages
crosses fingers, presses submit
I saw that Countdown episode. Dean just tossed out as a “maybe” as a possibilty.
Olberman has conflated and inflated it to be some grand plan by Obama to go back and prosecute. last night IIRC (I wans’t paying close attention I was repainting my bathroom and listening to the TV playing in another room)Olberman said sommething nuts like, “Why would Obama care about this bill and civil suits if he intends to go after them criminally.” [that’s NOT an actual quote]
I have two things to say in repose to KO 1) Obama NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING!
2)as BMAZ has pointed out: Statute of Limitations, Statute of Limitations, Statute of Limitations.
I think KO has caught the ratings bug.
handy 1 pager on current bill for us non lawyers
Kobe was reading his copy of the Washington Post this morning when he came across this fine ad by Color of Change and Blue America that told him Steny Hoyer wanted to give the government the same powers to spy on people that they had used against Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.
http://firedoglake.com/2008/06.....gton-post/
Obama is aware that Center Dems like Steny and Joe Lieberman are laughing at him for endorsing Joe in the Primary and now for supporting this bill.
Obama the Center Democrats do not like you, they will never like you, you cannot win them over. However we who have been by your side are not going to be Sister Souljahed on this issue so you can look cool to your new fake friends.
Go on repeat Carter’s mistakes and walk the Center path.
Lastr night on KO, someone, maybe it was ALter said that “Obama loves tobe attacked by the left” b/c it helps prove he is not a libural.
Almost as if he FU’d us deliberately to make out angry to prove to “moderates” that he ain’t no hippy lefty. If so, he is enjoying our outrage.
Even if you could work around the statute issue, a freaking monkey to sell reasonable doubt to a jury after the Congress enacted legislation saying it was all good faith and necessary. Alberto Gonzales might could even sell reasonable doubt; although if I was the defendant, I would prefer my chances with the monkey.
Look at the silver lining in this: it proves that Keith Obamamann didn’t just support Obama out of Hillary-hatred. (Which is what I thought.) He really does love Obama unconditinally. “My candidate right or wrong!” With liberals like that who needs conservatives?
Obama has made no secret all along that he’s a centrist through and through. I can’t believe so many people here don’t see that. I’d like to repeat a prediction I made over at digby’s:
Obama will “compromise” on women’s right to choose. It will be something like supporting the outlawing of third-trimester abortions or something like that. He has been reaching out to the snake handlers and I predict he will cave on abortion soon– by midsummer. Mark my word.
Do you really think he’s read the bill? I don’t. And just because he’s got law cred doesn’t mean he’s invested in the issue like we dirty hippies are.
(Very off topic)
Bow to his infinite cuteness. http://farm4.static.flickr.com.....807a_b.jpg
Face it. You could use a quick diversion from the horrors of teh FISA bill, etc., etc., and what better diversion than the world’s cutest puppy.
(On topic - though Che hasn’t blogged it yet, and may never blog it b/c he can get buy on his cuteness, Che got an A in Con Law at his fancy Law School (really!), and he thinks it sucks as much as suck could (United States’ Constitution)constitutionally suck).
1,685 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen ThingsComeUndone:
“Is Obama being blackmailed?”
I have asked myself this question over and over again the last few dayz and I keep comin’ up against my knowledge that the former president and his wife corrupt everything they put their hands on…I don’t think we know everything that Obama had ta give up to Mr. and Mrs. Bill for support and even now on “unity day” Mr. Bill is orchestrating the media with his pouting schoolboy act. I do know that Obama is too smart to kill the people based money machine he has built that has enabled ‘im to opt out of public financing and I refuse to believe that he really thinks he can win without the progressive base because we have nowhere ta go. I think he’s been genuinely surprised by the uprisin’ of the sans culotte out here and I get the impression that he and his people are madly tryin’ ta tack back into the wind on this issue.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, AIN’T DEMOCRACY FUN??!!!
Thats what makes his support worse and John Dean actually has plenty of experience in this kind of law with his association with Nixon and if he can’t figure it out well Obama is a little distracted trying to run a presidential campaign.
Holy Cow!
I haven’t seen you in about a year!
How ya been?
muwahahaha!
I used the tool on Obama’s site to post my own thingy!
Senator Obama-FISA gives telecoms permission to sell our secrets to terroristsSenator Obama-FISA gives telecoms permission to sell our secrets to terrorists
it awaits administrator approval
Here’s my comment on Keith’s post. I thought it was worth sharing.
What kind of crap is that? Jeebus
I don’t want to get into a fight with a flower :-)
but I think someone like Obama who is educated in constitutional law must be invested in protecting the fourth amendment. Just think– even Bob Barr cares about it!
Yesterday someone here linked to this KOS diary. Well worth reading:
A pragmatists view on FISA.
GO perris!
Stock market in the toilet
Oil sets new record high
Afghanistan casualties heating up
global warming doing well
Nice Job Clusterfuck-
2)as BMAZ has pointed out: Statute of Limitations, Statute of Limitations, Statute of Limitations.
If the White House is pushing a bill to protect themselves from laws that they may have broken well wouldn’t that suspend the clock on the Statute of limitations? Never mind that with all the political hires at the Dept of Justice there is no way Bush would be prosecuted.
EPU - Long time no see
Salutations
Parentheses much?
;~P
My comment at 54 was supposed to be a response to this!
Hey busted. I’m very good. Out in LA, lovin California, working on some cool projects.
Other than world’s cutest puppy posts, I avoid boring myself on the political side of things though I lurk/hang back and enter the contests (only to be cheated out of victory each time of course (TwoPAC should have won, and yes, I am very bitter), eventhough I KNOW that is going to happen).
Aye yup, what BMAZ said
a most icelandic to see you elliot!
I bought a whole crate of parentheses at a yard sale last year. Still got plenty left.
No. If the bill doesn’t speak to criminal conduct, which is the basis of this whole inane discussion, then there is nothing tolling the statute.
Citizen bmaz:
It’s the kinda “crap” that some of you folks want to hide from…ever since the armistice between Obama and Mr. and Mrs. Bill things have been headin south for the Senator from Illinois. Wake up!
One would certainly hope so. . . but his actions say otherwise, no?
Also picked up footnotes, and bold.
EPU! missed you brother. glad to see you back
The key, as in most things, is moderation.
waving to Che’s human companion !
damn! what a cutie
AIN’T DEMOCRACY FUN??!!!
Lets wait to see how this plays out I don’t like Obama on this issue so I nail him on it. Lets see if Obama is any better than Bush, will he listen to us voters? Can he admit when he has made a mistake?
I still support Obama but I’ve stopped giving him money.
I joined that group and I’ve been getting copied on over comment. there are a LOT of unhappy Obama supporters wrt FISA.
Hopefully Captain Hopechange will get the fucking message.
It’s now Olbermann 48.5% to Greenwald’s 46.2%. I’m not sure how that adds up to 100, but whatever.
And All I gots is a bunch of ;~P’s
NOPE
I can’t figure out how to comment on the original blog
you have to sign up as a member first I believe.
oh perris, I read that ICELAND thread after the fact and couldn’t stop giggling, that whole ongoing exchange is an FDL classic!
thanks for the link to HuffPo vote. I just voted for GG, too. He is at 46.1%, KO is at 48.6%, so it’s a statistical tie right now, since I assume fewer than 1,500 folks have voted.
P.S. also just joined the new list-serv over at my dot barackobama dot com. This is going to be fun for July 4th recess.
It sounds like people are rationalizing and justifying why they supported Obama. I guess he looked like a lefty kind of guy. He is just another triangulator using the Clinton/Morris playbook. Looks like the netroots lefties are left out to dry like a turd on a stick. We just need to help educate BO.
On Tuesday Obama met w/ a group of CEOs, including Brian Roberts of Comcast
http://hotlineblog.nationaljou.....ofest.html
I would feel better about it had Obama done the right thing on FISA.
handy 1 pager on current bill for us non lawyers
*Now* i find a one-pager! - and it has the provision I was thinking about and digging through the long version for:
No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1). [Sec. 702(h)(3)]
That’s pretty definitive.
Now I’ve seen somewhere another excerpt which speaks solely to civil cases, which I’m sure is what John Dean was speaking to.
(currently not in the mood to go diving through the other 98 pages looking for it).
Unless I’m in moderation (and I didn’t type anything immoderate), it ate my post. so……
Hey LHP. Hey CBL2 (even if you did, I believe, win the naming contest - I am bitter, bitter, bitter*)
________________________
* BITTER !!!!!!!!!!
looseheadprop, there are some crimes that have no statute to limit prosecution.
AND I believe the clock begins when the crime is discovered in many cases, for instance, if information JUST became available my invention was stolen, I believe the clock would start when I can document said discovery
I was looking for that link!
The remaining percentages are probably write in votes for Che?
thanx for finding that elliot, I will now bookmark
As one of the first and most persistant critics here of Keith Olbermann, I can only say that I t… … .o.
Has the honorable Senator from Illinois given a coherent explanation (or any explanation at all) about why he’s voting the way he’s voting on that bill?
Slightly off topic…probably a little early to ask a question like this, but does anyone have a link/resource of state polls done that includes third parties at this point? I’m trying to do a quick regional analysis of third party support.
So far the only poll I can find is for Georgia, Barr’s home state.
Any help would be appreciated
Without this bill, the current FISA law would still be in effect. Glenn Greenwald in his first post on this quoted Jonathan Alter of Newsweek responding to Olbermann.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g.....index.html
(My bold)
Needless to say Alter is an idiot.
have you received the flyer on my Contest Winning Secrets Course ?
Sign Up Today ! bwaaahaaahaaaa
(ok, I was just kidding, dont vaporize me :D)
707
More likely Bill talked to Mayor Daley after all where else would you go to learn about corruption from a Chicago politician. Or maybe just something embarrassing I figure its either Daley from Chicago or Bush listening to Obama with FISA given Obama’s support on the vote I’m leaning toward Bush and FISA, but just what is Hilary’s position on this bill she and Obama could both kill it if they wanted too?
Che had a good time with that flyer.
The problem with that analysis is that he is narrowly focused on the question of whether blocking this FISA bill would restore the Fourth Amendment, and since he argues that it doesn’t, he concludes that it doesn’t much matter. The analogy I would make is that he’s arguing that since the house already burned down, we shouldn’t care that they’re sabotaging the fire hydrant. There are several big problems with that:
1. He’s ignoring the fact that discovery in the telecom suits is one of the few active avenues we have to exposing the lawbreaking of the Bush Administration.
2. He’s ignoring the fact that even if we do get the “real” problem fixed (the Patriot Act), there’s no good reason to add yet another difficult-to-fix problem to the pile, this one with the next president’s vote in favor.
3. Arguably the worst — he’s ignoring the damage done by explicitly excusing lawbreaking if it was ordered by the president. The Bushies have effectively (though not explicitly) claimed that the president is above the law (signing statements, etc.), but have ducked legal challenges to those claims because for the next authoritarian president, they didn’t want to have precedent against them on record, only the claims themselves. Now they’ll have an actual precedent enshrined in law, without even having had to take the risk of losing in court.
there it is in a nutshell, a perfect encapsulation how not to exert political pressure.
how about If the Senator does the right thing, then he might get supported?
the only thing that allows me to make such an outrageous, counterintuitive formulation is that I do not subscribe to the Axiom of automatic support for the Least-Worst, the (D) lease on my loyalties having expired in the mid-nineties.
I think tolling is unavoidable, in either a civil or criminal action, in that the entire project was massively cloaked in secrecy, and created in such a manner as to very purposefully conceal its very existence.
To this day, the government has not admitted that these companies are engaged in the activities complained of/suspected.
Who was the Senator on the Floor this week talking about how “the companies allegedly providing assistance” to the government had had a period during which they were down, “which caused us, permanently, the loss of valuable intelligence”?.
It is *still* not being admitted that such a program exists. (but just in case that it does - hey - they’re immune).
This is the comment I left at his website
It’s not too late for him to come out strong against the FISA/telecom immunity bill, in spite of any cloture vote. Let’s keep his feet to the fire!
read Christy’s Taking Back The Reins Of Government
Phew! Thanks so much Hugh. It didn’t sound right and I like to slap things down out in the open as much as possible.
So pups if you heard this crap, it’s just wrong!
Lets not forget Sen. Obama’s vote in favor of Patriot II - what a champion of civil liberties!
bravo! (brava?)!
heh
But I have to say I am a little sad to see KO’s normally astute common-taters get this so wrong. It hurts the quality of KO’s show for me. Why hasn’t KO let Rachel Maddow come on to explain how KO and Alter just have it backward?
What about anyone who is arrested thanks to FISA but then is found to be innocent, or thanks to FISA is tortured/dies in custody which is a war crime even if they are guilty. Never mind that many still have not gotten that speedy trial the Constitution promises.
This is the form letter he sent me as a constituent who had written to him on the subject. I leave out the first paragraphs in which he recites some of the legislative history. These are the last two core paragraphs.
(my bold) and the [] too.
I just got off telephone with DiFi’s office (again). I called to thank her for her for her position on the SCOTUS Second Amendment ruling. She’s on the right side on this IMO. She states she was profoundly disappointed in the ruling saying she ” just didn’t believe” they would go against Stare Decisis. So I told “Joe” that I expected her to vote against the FISA bill for the same reason. That she should understand that they can’t be relied on to do the right thing. She must enforce the provisions of the fourth Amendment not extend them to somebody who tells you one thing then slaps you in the face when the first opportunity arises.
A) the S of L for FISA is, I beleive, only 5 years.
B) we discovered it already. That’s why there are civil suits pending.
is it wildly coincidental Rachel hasn’t been on KO this week ? Is she on vacation from AA as well - just find it kinda hinky the one person normally espousing our world view is AWOL on KO at this time
Tearing that excuse to shreds could take up a whole post.
What a novel idea!
Yeah, we had a guest over, so I couldn’t yell at the TV set when Alter was saying that, and also arguing that standing up to “the left wing” by voting for something that Republicans love but the general public doesn’t even care about was somehow showing “strength.”
I was reminded of the recent study of “political analyststs” on TV, which showed that they’re people who are willing to talk confidently about things that they know nothing about. (It was about partisan analysts, but the same principle obviously applies.)
Personally I’ve never liked Keith Obamamann so I’m enjoying this, but it saddens me to say that Rachel Maddow (whom I love!) has apparently become addicted to her MSNBC paycheck. She was on the other day (I think with David Gregory) and was agreeing with everyone else that another terrist attack would be a plus for John McCain, thus helping them spread that false meme. Ouch, Rachel how could you betray us?
Are you kidding? You ever litigated the question of a tolled statute on a criminal case? Dude, the question is whether the government knew, not you and me. The DOJ was aware of the program from before it was implemented. There will be no tolling of the statute on any possible criminal charges; not that this DOJ or Obama’s DOJ would ever really bring them anyway.
(OK, but only a quickee)
On another site (Chatzy “Gabbly Refugees” page (and I’ll bring the witnesses if necessary), I wrote, many months ago, in response to an Obama supporter, that his belief that Obama was somehow “different” than HRC or any other village politician was, IMOO, misplaced, and he’d wind up being very disappointed.
Turns out I’m right (and no, it never gets tired).
And how did I know this? Omniscience? No. Obama’s a politician. Get used to being disappointed.*
_____________
*Admittedly, I was and am an Edwards supporter. And I voted for HRC over Obama (Edwards had suspended his campaign) b/c I knew her faults, and Obama was (and still is) an unknown. So, I went with the devil I knew.
But, I’ll vote for Obama in November regardless - he had me at not repuglican, and I’ve always felt that way - I’ll vote for whomever the dem nominee is. The idea of a litmus test on one issue, no matter how big (and few are bigger than what the FISA fight involves) just has never worked for me.
Redshift, I think you are very correct to stress this:
I could be wrong, but it seems there is an even more dangerous feature of this new FISA bill: the immunity for the phone companies may not just be “retroactive,” it may immunize any conduct they engage in into the *future* as long as the AG certifies the necessary “facts.” And, I could be wrong, but it appears also to immunize such conduct by *anyone,* not just phone companies, who receives a certification from the AG.
B) we discovered it already. That’s why there are civil suits pending.
Don’t know that I agree. Those cases are still up in the air, and in the one case where the plaintiff was accidentally provided with written evidence proving the program’s existence, I believe that that evidence was excluded.
The government, in none of the pending cases, has *admitted* the existence of the program. They are, however, choosing to fight those cases on affirmative defenses, as opposed to (yet) arguing that the program does or does not exist.
Not really. Try this:
See that wasn’t so hard.
Rachel was off AA yesterday and today, I think, but was there for Wednesday’s show.
1,685 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen ThingsComeUndone:
“…but just what is Hilary’s position on this bill she and Obama could both kill it if they wanted too (sic)?”
Now yer gettin’ to it Citizen TCU …but remember that neither Obama or Mrs. Bill could kill it by themselves. They BOTH -together- could sink this thing and therein lies the rub…where is Obama’s leverage in this relationship and has he found himself snookered by the Queen of Hearts and her husband?
The former president and his wife are drivin’ both the media narrative and the issues in the campaign so far since the truce…I still don’t think that there is a secession of hostilities yet and I think poor Obama is jest findin’ that out.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, LET’S KEEP ALL THE BASTARDS’ FEET TA THE FIRE!!
Btw - That’s all for me today, it took all my energy to post that one politically themed comment and I’m drained.
Enjoy the world’s cutest dog, and be well.
I’ll be back (at least with cute dog pictures).
Neocon political-military operatives in Obama / McCain campaigns , the oil speculators
The 2 candidates got heavy-duty neocon political-military operatives on their teams , we must speak about this BECAUSE THE MEDIA WILL NEVER DO IT :
1) take McCain , besides Charlie Black , he’s got Phil Gramm, the “Enron Loophole” master…for the money, that is………also neocon members of the Eisenberg group, the guy who signed the WTC 99 year leases to Silverstein ,Goldman,etc., just 6 weeks before 9/11, in a big rush to put it mildly….he’s got also Kravis from KKR and Ken Mehlman who with Fleischer,Ullman,Rosen,Libby,Abrams,Feith,Wolfowitz and Zakheim,among other darlings, created the master plan to invade Iraq,bomb the daylights out of the CIVIL POPULATION ( Ullman : the shock and awe ! guy ) and leave all the arms and explosives depots unguarded to fuel the insurgency and justify more attacks and more contracts,and ond and on, we could go on for days about their military precision plan ….
2) Obama’s got Ben-Veniste , who with Zelikow and the Robert Rubin team and others turned the 9/11 Commission Report into a national insult, these ultra-neocons from the political-military hard core section of the Mossad-Aipac kept key questions about WTC-7,Insurance policies from 23 Insurance Companies just 3 to 5 weeks weeks before 9/11, etc. etc. out of the report and with no answers…….he’s got Albright,Farber, Furman,Sussman,Reich,and none other than Orin Kramer who with Farber are the link to the Hedge-Funds ( and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley ) which control 30% of the Oil,Gas,Heating Oil and Futures contracts, the swaps and commodities index funds that pushes oil and gas prices every day up for huge trading profits…the cancer of America and the world…and their managers and partners pay only 15 % in taxes instead of the 25 to 30 % that the rest pays…….the Hearings this month of June 2008 in the HOUSE and SENATE are a must for every student and taxpayer in America,in the Senate the 3rd of June 2008 chaired by Senator Cantwell and in the House the 23 of June 2008 by R.Stupak and R.Dingell, these 2 Hearings and others are a full view of the abuse,incompetence and corruption in Wall Street and Washington D.C….
so the 2 candidate’s got some heavy shame in their campaigns……
and all these neocons work together, they may disagree on policy details,but their intent is for the same faith,same country and same military control, these neocons want America addicted to Middle East Oil and Gas forever ,Saudi Arabia and Opec, and with only one friend in the region, Israel, and so forced to keep USA troops there forever and sending money to them forever too…
so will the 2 candidates get rid of the waste and junk? , will they do the job of America? or will they continue to do the job of the Neocon and Oil Lobby’s ? what will the 2 candidates do ?
the worst is that there is still not a National Plan to start installing solar panels and wind turbines on every building in America, start manufacturing plug-in electric cars by the millions right now, no plans to start hydrogen and methanol fuel cell cars production lines, no plans to start a geothermal farm in every State, no plans to turn all the garbage into electricity or steam, etc.etc., NOTHING !!!
Thanks to Secretary Rice for demanding that extreme israelis stop stealing the land of palestinian farmers to build luxury homes and condos with USA Taxpayers money, enough! , since the Annapolis Peace Conference these extreme israelis have started all together 3.000 new homes for a total of 8.000 homes, and the USA gets the hate and the bombs around the world…it’s time to share Jerusalem and the 2 State Solution, it’s time ! ….and because this is the root of most of the hate and violence.
as many are saying, the fact that AP’s ( Associated Press) new USA editor in charge is Oreskes,an extreme neocon from the New York Times, is insulting, he was with the rest,Sulzberger,Safire,Rosenthal,Kristol,Rupert Murdoch,Karmazin, Lehrer,etc., pushing for the Iraq War every day in 2002 and 2003, with Senators Schumer,Lieberman,Kyl, Boxer,Feinstein, and Rep.Emanuel,Israel, etc., all pushing to attack and bomb, every day , and now that this Oreskes controls all the AP stories for the USA markets is absurd, and with the total monopoly control that the neocons have over http://www.c-span.org/ and http://www.npr.org/ as well as PBS-TV , America is without a free democratic voice !!!
Politico’s June 24,2008 issue story , “Hedge Funds ISO Political Cover”, is key to get the latest on the battle between the Hedge Funds and Congress, and also the Hedge Funds count with a key asset, the new IRS Commissioner,Shulman, is a dear friend, if you know what i mean….so the Hedge Funds will never pay their share,they will stay at 15 % ,while the rest of America pays 25 to 30%, and playing the over-the-counter commodities markets overseas, isn’t wonderful?……so it’s a reality, neocons are above the USA Constitution,the IRS laws are just for gentiles……AND GREENWALD AND OLBERMAN ARE 2 VERY NICE ISRAELI-AMERICAN MEDIA SPINNERS THAT WILL NEVER SAY A WORD ABOUT ANY OF THIS, WHILE THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS DESERVE A LOT MORE, IT’S TIME !
shorter yet -
the opposition sits at 24% and falling
81% of the american people oppose immunity
I agree, and that was pretty much my third point. I don’t know whether this bill actually establishes that, but it definitely establishes the precedent for it, which never existed before.
I’m trying to avoid actually downloading the frickin’ 114 pages and finding the definitions section. I was supposed to be on vacation this week, but spent every day faxing Congress.
So to summarize:
Ask not for whom the statute tolls. It does not toll for thee or me.
Have I got that right?
Yup.
Indeed,
I got carried away….
the question is whether the government knew, not you and me.
arghhh - you’re right.
Any way to make the DOJ a defendant? heh.
heading off to work, but would love to pick your brain
what would happen if dfh’s everywhere switch party affiliation from Dem to Independent in a massive one day action ?
could quite possibly be a ridiculous idea - but it doesn’t stop me from thinking about it
I’ll take my answer on the air
mad progressive love to all firedogs
Keep Your Patriot Hand Strong !
I agree with everything you say and fully support the anti-FISA efforts. The fight for the constitution must be made at every encroachment.
That said, the article clearly addresses the underlying patriot act problem that will endure.
LHP, I tried to send an email to you, but the address I had no longer works.
Bob in HI
Well, I’m not a big Randi Rhodes fan, but this clinches it.
It was Jonathan Alter on her show, d’oh!, repeating this warrantless, operating outside the constitution crap. Hello? old bill in effect! This is a comment from the episode message board host person summarizing the discussion
What a bunch of crap. It’s really disappointing to see cover for Stenies.
I agree, it is not too late to persuade Obama to do the right thing. If enough pressure is exerted he will walk back from his previous position.
I like the way you think and number 3 is esp. compelling for me. I want some justice, dammit. I want the lawbreakers in jail. how sad is it that the branch that is supposed to enforce the law is breaking it? And I don’t want any Gerald Ford pardoning/healing/let’s just get past it crap going on. That will jsut embolden our political neo con terrorists.
new thread
There’s probably a lot of pressure being exerted at the moment- FROM THE OTHER DIRECTION. These companies has a lot of money and power.
As the govt (DOJ) knew, and is arguably complicit in the furtherance of the concealing of illegal activity, how about a Special Prosecutor?
just tossing out ideas.
and:
New Thread.
What wiretaps that are occurring now outside of the old FISA bill are ones that were begun under the Protect America Act (PAA) passed last August and which expired in February. Because such wiretaps could be continued for one year under the PAA, the authorization for them will begin to expire this August. That was in part there has been this rush for a new FISA bill. It is actually not much of a reason though. A further 6-9 month extension of the PAA and/or current wiretaps would put the issue into the next Administration and Congress.
For example, what does this mean?
That is from p. 46 (lines 14-18) of the 114 pp. PDF linked to above, section 703, subsection (e). I don’t even know for sure that the PDF is the true version of the bill passed by the House, since it does not show the bill number (H.R. 6304) and it is dated June 18. H.R. 6304 passed the House on June 20. We need to find the digital version of this sucker on Thomas dot LOC dot gov.
Anyway, if section 703(e) gives a total “release” for “acquisitions” done under section 703, such a “release” would not just be retroactive but cover all *future* activity under section 703. Section 703 deals with surveillance targeted at U.S. persons outside of the country, if I read it correctly.
But why should he do the right thing if you are voting for him anyway? Face it — he is a politician — all they care about are votes.
I agree that contacting him and railing — does not help. It seems it would be better to just state your case with no mention of a vote depending on the outcome, or not. (That is, if you plan to make your vote contigent on HIS vote on FISA. But, in that case, as usual, he just doesn’t have to vote, as it seems Clinton, McCain, and Obama plan to do — sit it out. I wish it would be close enough that those cowards HAVE to vote.)
Most, if not all, of the pardoning will happen as Bush heads out of office. It’ll be delayed if the Republics have any election chances. Either way, the little fellow’s going to be doing lots of signing. It’ll probably be his hardest work of his entire Presidency.
In appeasement, one must weigh the supreme court’s view. Where the bill is clearly unconstitutional, we have a court that could care less about the constitution. Thus support of something granting immunity assures us that they are getting off after violating the law.
There is no excuse for this reasoning except to someone in favor of granting immunity, and thus protecting someone’s ass. How could anyone vote to eliminate a critical provision in our constitution?
There is no war, there is no crisis. The oil companies little soldiers are out keeping their profits safe in Iraq, threatening Iran, and all the while coddling the saudi’s. We remember them as the people that attacked us in a carefully arranged publicly traded, stunt on 9/11/2001.
I just don’t see how more than 10% of the people have any near term memory at all. We place too much value in heroes working for the very companies that have no interest in telling the truth, and every interest in keeping it from the public to assist their profits. News networks are all bs, and all of the time. We can’t forget that if we want to continue to get facts that stand up to scientific investigation. Keith works for GE, they make bombs for a living. Jack Cafferty is hardly a liberal democrat, but he does understand that the laws are being broken. How many more, a handful? The rest, 95% of all punditry, are all war profiteers. It must be their job description?
They are already stockpiling crayons against that day.
I think they still have statute issues, with most of the real root conduct, even with a special prosecutor (not thata SP could totally be Chinese walled off from the DOJ anyway). The bottom line is criminal action, at least of any substantial nature that we want, just isn’t going to happen. This type of conduct and situation is precisely what the impeachment provisions were supplied for, that is the appropriate remedy; but, of course, that has been ruled out under any circumstances.
when they say “in an unconstitutional envirnment”, what they mean to say is;
“IT WAS FRIGGING ILLEGAL”
when they say “it restores the constitution”, what they mean to say is;
“WE WILL CALL THE ILLEGAL ACTS LEGAL AND THEREFORE BE WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION ONCE AGAIN”
depraved IDIOTS
I would just focus on FISA and how lame Obama’s excuse sounds you seem to be drifting into other subjects on the idea of Obama not fighting if elected well I disagree with you.
you mean just about everyone who they ever held and tortured?
yup, good point
So, in other words he supports a measure he knows is bad because his leadership made a deal. And since his presumptive nominee status makes him part of the leadership, de facto, one can really say that HE made a deal (or let it be made by failing to exercise leadership).
I will vote for the guy.. even campaign for him, but, seriously, this is no way to convince us that he’s the decisive leader this country needs. Back to the drawing board, Barry.
Fat Block Quote Alert.
Just to finish up this thread, since nobody here really feels like doing the Senate’s own homework, here is the digital version of the FISA bill placed on the Senate calendar on June 20:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/.....10muUV9Y::
You won’t believe the definitions section (section 801) in the portion dealing with retroactive immunity. Here is just a small sample:
Don’t you just love that “or another form of assistance?”
Also, check out section 802(a), which is the retroactive immunity section:
while we discovered the fisa crimes already we did not discover who was damaged, for instance, how could I possibly know they took my invention yet, I would have to have access to that information, I do not believe my s of L begins till I have access to the information, which I do not as yet have
I did sign up and all I can find is how to comment on other comments, I can’t find out how to comment on the original author
Yeah, blaming it on the leadershp only goes so far here. In the House, even my junior and normally rather quiet Congresscritter stood up to the leadership, tried to get her fellow members on side, press released her opposition, and then voted no. Given the pressure that the leadership can bring to bear on a junior party member stepping out of line, certainly Senator Obama could’ve done a LOT more.
I want the old Obama back - the principled fellow who was going to stand up to the telecoms and protect the Constitution.
what you are describing is closer to the statute of limitations for bringing RICO-type claims where the existence of the conspiracy may not have been known by its victims. There is a ton of totally confusing case law on those types of limitations periods.
We just need to find the actual limitation language for actions arising upon violations of 50 U.S.C. 1801-1871.
P.S. My link to the digital version won’t work, because Thomas gives “search results” a very short life span. Just go to this link and type HR 6304 into the box, click the “bill number” radio button, and run the search: http://thomas.loc.gov/
The law on the books now already says this (50 USC 1805(i)):
Which is what GG is always reminding people: there is already an immunity section in existing law, we don’t need to add retroactive immunity.
The criminal penalties are in 50 USC 1809; civil liability is in 50 USC 1810. Could not find the statute of limitations, someone needs to jump on Lexis or Westlaw.
Sen Clinton, I suspect, will back whatever Senator Obama’s play is here… she kind of doesn’t have a choice… which may explain the radio-silence on her senate website, on the issue.
i) Bar to legal action. No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other
specified person thereof) that furnishes any information, facilities, or technical assistance in accordance with a court order or request for emergency assistance under this chapter for electronic surveillance or physical search.
this is why the immunity clause doesn’t make any sense, they are already prortected from what the president claims they have done
they are only not protected from things they might have done without an “emergency request”
their only protocol is proving there was a request in the first place
I’m with Glenn. How can we trust someone willing to violate the constitution?
say a new DOJ, one which *wants* to go after the telecoms criminally, and has a case ready to go by June of 2009.
Unless I’m missing something, you’re starting your limitations period from 9-11-01. If the applicable statute is indeed five years, and given that this was a continuing program and enterprise, doesn’t that leave the period between June of 2004 and June of 2009 open for action?
Simple question. Why doesn’t Obama speak publicly in favor of the Dodd/Feingold/Leahy amendment? He DID say he ‘would work to strip immunity’; does simply voting in favor of an amendment that odds makers say will fail count as ‘working’? I agree that the bill should go back to the House or be re-written but probabilities are against that, especially in view of the desire to void(have expire) the Protect America Act.
BUT what rationale does Obama have for not publicly support the Dodd/Feingold/Leahy amendment?
And from an earlier thread by Christy:
Christy wrote “If we had more elected officials willing to lead on civil liberties issues like Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd and a number of others have been in front of the cameras and behind the scenes, I think we would be much better off. But, alas, we don’t.”
Let me suggest that there is a structural problem that libertarians/conservatives/moderates/progressives,etc.(except the neocons) could get behind and that is actually having representative government; As mentioned before, Iraq parliament consists of 275 lawmakers for 27M people; the U.S. has 535 lawmakers for 300+M people. The Senate populace is enshrined in the Constitution at 2 Senators per state but the Constitution’s language is ambiguous about the number of Representatives. Such has been set by the House at 435 members since 1941.
U.S. population in 1941 was 133,402,471 (source= http://www.demographia.com/db-uspop1900.htm
So we now have about 2 1/2 times the number of citizens and the same amount of Representatives; anyone else see what’s wrong with this picture?
I suggest a push- and Obama ,if elected, should be pushed- to rectify this; ESPECIALLY in view of the technology advances since 1941.
From: http://www.thirty-thousand.org.....onment.htm
“1992
— Overruling a U. S. district court decision, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled against Massachusetts on technical grounds involving “the separation of powers and the unique constitutional position of the President.” (The President is charged with calculating and transmitting the apportionment to Congress.)
And for more background: http://bryanbrickner.blogspot......quals.html
Is it any wonder ‘progressives’ have such a hard time getting people elected?
1. Without retroactive immunity stripped from the FISA bill before it becomes law, the civil suits against the Telecoms cannot proceed.
2. Without the civil suits against the Telcoms adjudicated before a court, there will be no opportunity to obtain sworn testimony which can help to determine the full extent of the illegal activity involved in the Bush Administration’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. This would, in turn, hamstring any effort to bring criminal charges against Bush Administration officials, and/or the Telecoms.
3. If and when Bush decides to offer a blanket pardon for any criminal activity committed by all parties involved in his illegal warrantless wiretapping program, the cover up will be complete, the extent of damage done to our civil liberties, our Constitution, and the Rule of Law will never be known, and justice for the damage done can never be obtained.
Everything KO said last January in his Special Comment blasting the FISA bill’s retroactive immunity provision is as true right now as it was then. That Obama supports this bill doesn’t change the facts one iota. I love KO, but in this case Olbermann is wrong and Greenwald is right.
Obama has made a serious mistake here, both tactically, and on principle. Tactically, because appeasing the GOP is impossible (they’re already laughing at him for his “FISA Flip-Flop” even though they agree with his new stance), and on principle, because, as a Constitutional Law professor, he knows the type of damage the passage of a bill like this can engender.
Political expediency be damned. As a US Senator, he’s already sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic. Feingold’s given him a little time to get his act together. I hope he uses it wisely.
Voted and left this comment:
Wow. I’m really surprised to see that even on a very friendly site for Obama like HuffPo that the vote is split between Greenwald and keith. This gives me great hope. I’m very happy to see so many Obama supporters vote for Greenwald because it means you took Obama’s words to heart when he said:
Barack Obama
Those of you who voted with Greenwald are demonstrating that you believe in your own power to bring about change in Washington and that you are not just going to sit back and let your leaders do it for you. Congratulations to all of you! Those of you who voted for Keith on this are unfortunately still stuck in the old mindset that says you have to follow your leader no matter what. Obama doesn’t believe that so why do you?
Per Barak Obama clip on Count Down http://www.msnbc.msn.com/…
The problem is that this bill is aimed at getting rid of everything about which Obama says, “I do want …”:
– To get accountability, you have to hold people accountable rather than immunize them.
– To force the administration to go through FISA court, you leave FISA in place rather than legalizing the circumvention of FISA courts.
– To get to the bottom of what’s been taking place, you let the discovery processes of the current lawsuits run their course rather than support a law that forces the judges to dismiss those suits.
– To keep safeguards in place you don’t support legislation to remove them.
And, here’s Jonathan Alter on CountDown on Wed evening:
I’m sorry, but the only way to restore the Constitution is force the government to obey it or to ammend it. This bill does neither. In fact, it attempts to legalize what has been going on since August.
In addition to voting for Glenn in the HuffPo poll, I also joined the group on the Obama site that Jane referenced. I posted this comment there:
By Patty from Louisville, KY Jun 27th 2008 at 5:34 pm EDT
I posted this at Glenn’s site and plan on posting it at Kos too.
Believe it or not - Glenn’s view is also Obama’s view
For those Obama supporters who are knocking Glenn and those of us who share Glenn’s view about challenging your leaders (even Obama) I think you would do well to remember this quote from Obama, himself.
I’m asking you to believe - not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington…I’m asking you to believe in YOURS…Barack Obama
Glenn and those of us who support his view are doing exactly what Obama advocates. We aren’t waiting for Obama to change things all on his own. We are speaking up and letting Obama know that we want that change and we’re willing to fight for it and that if he’s willing to lead on this issue we have his back.
You can’t battle powerful interests without having the voice of the people to serve as your armor and your sword. By showing Obama that we are willing to stand toe to toe with him in this fight we provide the weapons that he needs in his arsenal to fight this epic battle against the powerful moneyed interests who want the FISA bill passed.
When we retreat and refuse to stand up for our own rights we dessert him and ourselves by not providing him with the collective voices of the people that are so necessary for him to be able to fight for us. We have a champion but we have to be willing to be his armor and sword if we hope to change this country.
Stop by and tell the Senator that you’ll be voting for him in November
I can’t tell him that because I don’t know if I want to yet. It really makes no difference because my vote doesn’t count anyway. The man I wanted is no longer running. I may even have to write him in.
Dennis was the progressive many of us have wanted for some time: a lonely voice crying in the desert, so to speak; but few gave heed.
I definitely wouldn’t vote for anyone resembling a Republican, that’s for sure; hence the reason I wouldn’t have been able to vote for Hillary.
I applaud Keith and Glenn for their efforts. I don’t always agree but they try to do their homework and I think they’re men enough to admit when they’ve made their mistakes.
The news these days has got me so bummed, I don’t even like reading the blogs much. Since I don’t watch much television (no satelite/cable here so I have ABC and PBS) and I’ve been so disheartened by the behavior of our elected leaders (from local to national), that I don’t hold much faith at all in the human animal, period.
As Gordon Lightfoot would say, “Fella’s, it’s been good to know ya”. We’re all in for a long haul. Let’s just hope (ah, eternal hope) that somehow we can make an effort to be better people. It takes effort to do (and be) good; it’s simple to do evil.
It’s been fun…
Personally I don’t see how this flip-flop of Obama’s helps him at all. It is demoralizing the base. (I am thinking about voting for Bob Barr in protest in Red Louisiana instead of getting out on the street and canvasing for him.) I can’t go out there and canvas for him and say he believe’s in civil rights when he just flip-flopped on the 4th amendment. 4th amendment being in the bill of rights dammit!!!!
This moderation stupidity is going to lose us the election again! Spinelessness is unbecoming a leader. Cravenly flip flopping is disgusting. Stand for something and they will come. Cravenly give in to law breaking telecoms and people might just stay home on election day.
Keep in mind Red Louisiana with dumb ass governor Bobby Jindal voted with the presidential winner….well for a long time, since before Clinton. So chances are if Obama loses Louisiana he will lose the presidency too.
I also would not put it past the Rethugs to run an ad on this flip flop or have one of their 527s do it. Even though it is their dying wish to have this FISA legislation, don’t think they won’t use it against you.
way late to the thread but do want to comment on this:
this strikes me as capitulation on our part - mary describes why over at emptywheel:
That’s the biggest problem here.
Just watched KO, and he’s stem-winding for a big “Special Comment” on this on Monday. I hope that Jonathan Turley gives him a call.
Keith has dug himself in a hole on this issue, and he’s probably too stubborn to get out. If you read Greenwald & KO’s Kos diary, KO admits he doesn’t know who Glenn is, and that he hasn’t read the bill.
KO is placing his whole position on this on his understanding of what he thinks John Dean said.
Jane, is there any way, in your talking to John Dean, that you can get him to call KO and get him to back off on this ridiculous pissing match? I think too, if KO would talk to Turley [actually, listen to Turley], he might get an understanding of
**why Obama is on the wrong side of this issue;
**why Glenn is correct in pointing this out;
**why John Dean’s supposed “interpretation” is not a reason for holding back criticism of Obama;
**why the “just give Obama a pass on this; he needs to win” strategy is not a good one.
For the more sophisicated among them, someone might also point out how Steny, Reid & Pelosi have actually boxed Obama into a very bad corner here: because he’s come out in favor of FISA, it makes it harder for other Dems to oppose it, because they’ll look like they’re not backing the Presumed Nominee. Steny Hoyer really deserves a Worst Person in the World award for this.
I’m just hoping there can be a little behind-the-scens negotiation before KO’s Special Comment on Monday.
Stop by and tell the Senator that you’ll be voting for him in November and hoping that in the meantime, he does the right thing.
When Obama had the chance to stop this bill, he didn’t. There’s no “right thing” on this issue after that. You wrote something similar about Pat Leahy not too long ago, Jane. What’s different now?
strikes me that it is sexist, if not mysogynist to refer to Sen Clinton in terms of her marital partner.