Folks, Obama did NOT flip-flop on FISA.

[johnaries]

First of all, he says he is still against giving Telecoms immunity and he supports stripping that section out of the bill. However, that is a lesser concern than the major issues the bill addresses:

"It is a close call for me," Obama told reporters. But he said the addition of the "exclusivity" provision giving power to the secret court, along with a new inspector general role and other oversight additions, "met my basic concerns." He said the bill's target should not be the phone companies' culpability, but "can we get to the bottom of what's taking place, and do we have safeguards?"

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/25/obama_defends_his_fisa_positio.html

This is not a flip-flop, folks. The bill has been revised to address the concerns Obama has had all along.

[Peacetrain]

1. I KNOW!

That is exactly it.. and if you read his commentary..he specifically states that this gets it out of the hand of the president..that is why he is supporting it..

[Jakes Progress]

27. But he is wrong.

This does no such thing. If he doesn't know that this bill gives the president unprecedented powers for unwarranted wire-tapping, he is misinformed. Read almost anywhere progressives gather to find dozens of explanations about how bad this bill is.

I'm voting for him, but in his statement about why he now supports the bill he is either showing ignorance or being disingenuous.

First the bill is wrong. Unbelievably wrong and horrifyingly evil. The worst form of Washington politics. Only those who are easily mislead would think this is a "compromise" that will improve FISA.

Second, supporting it is the wrong way to go to prove you are a better candidate than the republican.

Third, this is a flip-flop. In any definition of the term, this is an easily provable 180 degree change of direction for political gain. The really sad point is that it won't gain him support but may cost him the election as more and more begin to perceive him as just like the republicans. Here on DU, we're all going to show up and vote for him. But millions cheered him because he was different. When his policies become identical to the republican, they will stay home and watch television rather than go vote.

[johnaries]

28. Fine! Argue that he is wrong. But don't argue he's changed positions.

That's all I'm saying.

[Jakes Progress]

29. Why?

[johnaries]

33. Because it's the Truth. That's "why". nt

[Jakes Progress]

35. I know that's what Obama's campaign said,

but saying it over and over doesn't make it the truth.

The truth is that he was against the bill. The bill is basically unchanged (except for more of what he didn't like in the first one) and now he is for it. I like to think he has taken bad advice rather than he really doesn't mind doing away with the fourth amendment. I know that he said it is a new and improved bill. Thats what Steny and Nancy say too. But it isn't. It still removes any chance of going after the Teles and no matter how much they say they will "fix" that later, you won't get it done. And when he says the bill now provides more safeguards against misuse by the president, he is not right. It provides less. Shall I point you to several analyses of the bill that say so? For instance, the analysis of the ACLU. They support and endorse Obama, so they aren't some right wing attacker. But their expert analysis of the bill disagrees with the publicity statements that have come out to reassure those who would rather be comforted than be aroused.

Some things are just so. You can't wish them away. He goofed, and he looked weak doing so. He needs to fix it.

[johnaries]

38. In fact, there was language removed that would have provided

a loophole for warrantless eavesdropping.

May I remind everyone that this whole deal is over an act of the Republican Congress that expired in Feb? the new bill is certainly better than that travesty, although admittedly it is still not perfect.

In the meantime, without a new FISA bill no new surveillance can be done - even that of actual terrorists.

Although I may not agree with the new FISA bill, we do need "something". And once we get the Repukes out of office we can pass a new bill that will allow the government to do what it needs to and still protect the rights of citizens.

But the key here is to GET THE REPULICANS OUT otherwise we won't be able to do anything.

[Jakes Progress]

83. Please. Read something. Somewhere.

The new bill is not an improvement.

Your statement about no surveillance being done until the bill passes is ridiculous. You just don't know this stuff. That is the talking point that the republicans are using on their slower supporters. limbaugh and his ilk peddle this kind of hokum. It's not true. Not in one little way.

Do you know what FISA is? It is already in effect. This bill just modifies it. The modifications allows the president much wider freedom to commit warrantless wiretapping with even less oversight. It also means that since the provisions of the bill would be made retroactive, that the crimes bush has committed in this area are now rendered legal. Therefore trial for discovery of misdeeds since now those would not be misdeeds.

There has been no such language removed. Please read something about this before you post again.

[GihrenZabi]

106. Not true

To say no new surveillance can be done without a new FISA bill is disingenuous at best, horribly-misleading at worst.

Does everyone not realize that we HAD the systems in place to use wiretaps BEFORE FISA???

You had, I believe, 24 hours to slap a wiretap on someone before you needed to get court permission to maintain the wiretap - otherwise, any intelligence you received as inadmissable.

All FISA did was remove those basic roadblocks because Bush didn't find them "convenient" - and THAT is why FISA is so wrong.

Seriously - you need to investigate things like this before making pronunciations. I am no expert, but just think about this logically - did we EVER procure intelligence using wiretaps BEFORE FISA?

If the answer is yes, then you have to ask yourself: why do we *need* FISA rather than working within the laws we already had?

We had all the intelligence we needed to prevent 9/11 - the government just didn't act upon it. It isn't new ways to procure intelligence we need, but competent government that takes decisive action when it has the information it needs...

[bjobotts]

97. Not true. 5months ago he gave a speech denouncing FISA.

[katandmoon]

2. So when Pelosi and Reid do it it's treason but when Obama does it he's sticking to his principles

Got it.

[loyalkydem]

3. Your not seeing

the bigger picture. Obama I believe is letting this go through so he can go back and uncover all the dirty underwear in the Bush Administration. Cut the man some slack.

[katandmoon]

7. So why can't Obama uncover Bush dirty underwear without granting telecoms retroactive immunity?

[johnaries]

18. Oh, he can! Which is part of the point.

He still wants to strip away the immubity clause. But he can find plenty of dirty laundry regardless. Which is one reason it's not as important as the major issues the bill addresses.

[styersc]

22. The lengths to which some will go to excuse this betrayal is funny.

Obama is diving to the center because he now feels he can take progressives for granted. Usually a candidate waits until elected to screw us over. Only time will tell how GOP-like our candidate will become.

[johnaries]

25. Explain yourself. Explain how this is a "betrayal".

Did you even read the OP? I am not offering "excuses", I am presenting the FACTS. And yet you choose to ignore the facts and attack instead.

This is NOT a betrayal. I challenge you to look at the facts and tell me how it is, without using non-reality based rhetoric.

[Cha]

59. The links you go to to whine..and I'm not talking

about honest criticism. You let anything go in the primaries with your candidate but now's your chance to jump on Obama in the General Election with immunity(you think).

Fucking obvious.

[johnaries]

9. I never said anything about Pelosi or Reid.

And please notice that Reid supports stripping the Telecom Amnesty out of the bill.

[stellanoir]

4. Nor did he flip flop on public financing.

I heard him say back in February that if he won the nomination, he would reassess how to proceed in the GE after sitting down with John McLame and coming to an agreement.

However given McLame's refusal to block 527 swifboating was a deal breaker and how this really should be framed if we had an honest media (if only) is that Obama saved taxpayers 80 some million dollars, and he's not yet the Pres.

That should be the primary talking point IMHO.

[johnaries]

26. Exactly! It was contingent on an agreement with McSame.

They could not reach an agreement, and so Obama did what he had to.

[mix]

5. immunity is one thing

permitting the government to spy on citizens w/o oversight is another...that is the problem w/ Obama's support for FISA

[johnaries]

11. Read the OP again. He supports the REVISED bill exactly BECAUSE

it supplies oversight.

[mix]

86. so does bush and company

nt

[bjobotts]

98. And it's deceitful spin just like Pelosi.ACLU tells YOU, Greenwald explains it

[bjobotts]

99. Here's Obama's speech denouncing warratless wiretapping etc

Obama gave a rousing speech during the South Carolina primary in which he inveighed against "wiretaps without warrants." On August 1 of last year, he delivered a speech entitled "The War We Need To Win" and said this (h/t cjackb):

This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. . . . That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America, and that is why the fifth part of my strategy is doing the hard and patient work to secure a more resilient homeland."

This does not jive at all with what he is saying now.

[bjobotts]

100. Dems could have waited till after elections to do a FISA redo. They sold out

[bjobotts]

101. Most House dems voted against FISA but the leadership and all republicans voted for it

[johnaries]

110. What? You better check the vote numbers again.

Only a handful of Dems voted against it.

[johnaries]

112. They couldn't. The old law expired in February.

They voted a 30-extension, but obviously it has expired as well.

[johnaries]

111. the FISA bill does not allow warrantless wiretaps. except

for cases not involving US citizens and in extreme circumstances such as when someone is in imminent danger. You should read the bill.

[Mass]

6. Can we still disagree with him on his position or do we have to agree 100 % on everything he says?\n

[johnaries]

13. It's fine to disagree, as long as you don't misrepresent

his actual position.

He intreprets the bill as supplying oversight. Some people disagree with that interpretation. That is fine. But don't say that he flip-flopped when he clearly has not:

1 - He wants oversight and the power given to courts (even a secret one) rather than the White House. He believes the revised bill does this.

2 - He still wants to strip the Telecom Amnesty out of the bill (so does Reid BTW), but he does not feel that is as important as protecting civil rights (see #1).

You can argue all you want if the bill actually does what he says it does, but don't call him a flip-flopper when he clearly is not.

[Mass]

14. No Democrat should use the term flip-flopper against another Democrat. End of story.\nt

[johnaries]

24. Thank you!

:hi:

[GihrenZabi]

108. If the shoe fits... N/T

[mix]

85. there is no significant oversight in the revised bill

regardless of Obama's interpretation

[johnaries]

89. No one claimed there was "significant" oversight. But there is some

which is better than the bill in it's previous form. Obama admitted that it's an extremely flawed bill. But it's the best we can get - until January, anyway.

[niyad]

8. so he is fine with secret courts? and this is okay with you? it is NOT okay with me, nor is it

okay with civil libertarians in general.

this is something else I will be bringing up with him this week.

[johnaries]

16. FISA courts were secret prior to BushCo.

They seemed to work well when the power wasn't abused.

[niyad]

77. and you would know this how? where did the fisa courts ever serve the people of

this country?

and yes, I know they have been around since before bush, but I have NEVER approved of secret courts, and never will. some people really ought to read our constitution.

[johnaries]

80. Perhaps you should enlighten yourself. FISA - Foreign Intelligence

FISA deals with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance. Where it gets tricky is when one of the parties is foreign and the other party is domestic.

[navarth]

10. Flip-Flop, Schmip_Flop....is he going to enforce the 4th Amendment??? Punish the War Criminals??

These bastards shouldn't be allowed to get away with this shit! UNACCEPTABLE.

I really really want to believe that Barack is going to do the right thing...is he adopting stances to get elected? Is he going to do the right thing later, or are we going to get bullshit excuses? Argh.

SURE I'm going to vote for him, I have no choice.

But he gets no more money from me until I have some indication he's going to do the right thing.

[johnaries]

15. Let me repeat a quote in the OP

"can we get to the bottom of what's taking place, and do we have safeguards?"

Sounds like he wants to do the "right thing" to me.

[niyad]

17. the RIGHT thing to do is to stop giving this damned administration everything it wants

I don't care what he 'SAYS he is going to do as president, I care right now about what our legislators are allowing this admin to do right now.

forget fixing it once he gets there. it is too late then

[johnaries]

20. This bill is NOT what Bush wanted!

He wanted full power without having to get permission from the courts. This bill puts the power in the courts. DEFINITELY not what Bush wanted.

[dailykoff]

50. It's more than he wanted. It's a huge give away.

Put the pig lipstick away.

[TBF]

36. Impeachment is very difficult. I'd like to see them try it - I believe Kucinich is a patriot -

but I can also see the pragmatic view of just getting them out of office and then dealing with fixing things. Even if we were capable of getting the guy impeached, trial for war crimes is extremely unlikely. Can you name specifically which laws Bush/Cheney have broken? They are mass murderers in my view, but it would be hard to prove that in court. Especially since they've stacked the court in their favor. As much as we'd all love it, police officers are not going to break down the door to the oval office and take them away in handcuffs.

We've really got two choices. We can trust Obama and give him a chance to get in there, or we can start the revolution now. I'm a pacifist so I'm eager to give Mr. Obama a chance. YMMV.

[dorkulon]

12. No, he didn't flip flop... he triangulated.

I'm still voting for him and all, but this "3rd way" strategerizing isn't exactly swelling me with pride.

[johnaries]

23. The "3rd Way" is the only way to get anything accomplished.

please this post about Obama's time as president of the Harvard Law Review:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6424192&mesg_id=6426612

The "3rd Way" is the way to Unify the country. Sorry if it's not "your way."

[slipslidingaway]

19. Many lawyers and various groups say that this bill infringes on

our rights.

Obama said in August 2007 that he would not undermine the Constitution and our freedoms. He said then that the FISA court works, so I would say that he has changed his mind or all those other lawyers and groups are wrong.

:shrug:

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

"...This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal ? wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America, and that is why the fifth part of my strategy is doing the hard and patient work to secure a more resilient homeland..."


On the exclusivity provision...


As Marty Lederman stated the Dems fought long and hard to retain a provision that has been in the original FISA bill for 30 years???

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/well-thatll-show-em.html


"...Perhaps the most important concession that Democratic leaders claimed was a reaffirmation that the intelligence protocols were the “exclusive” means for the executive branch to conduct wiretapping operations in terrorism and espionage cases. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had insisted on that element, and Democratic staff members asserted that the language would prevent Mr. Bush, or any future president, from circumventing the law. The proposal asserts “that the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the president of the United States,” Ms. Pelosi said.

Note the key word: reaffirmation. The Democrats worked long and hard to include in the bill a provision (stating that FISA and other specified statutes are to be "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and the interception of domestic wire, oral, or electronic communications may be conducted") that is, for all intents and purposes, a reenactment of the current 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f), which has been the backbone of FISA for 30 years.

The options, apparently, were to have this key provision stripped from FISA, as the Administration wanted (which would have made an incredibly permissive bill basically hortatory), or to retain it and "reaffirm" it. After a long, hard battle, the Dems prevailed on that one. Whew. Close call, that.

My favorite bit, however, is the Pelosi expectation that "the language would prevent Mr. Bush, or any future president, from circumventing the law." Yeah, right -- just as it "prevented" President Bush from authorizing wholesale violations of FISA from 2001 until 2007. (Note to Speaker Pelosi: President Bush's official view, vigorously defended by the Department of Justice, is that the "exclusive means" provision is unconstitutional, and can therefore be disregarded. FYI) ..."

[johnaries]

21. As I said upthread, it's one thing to argue interpretations of the bill,

but it's another to claim that Obama flip-flopped. He believes the bill addresses his main concerns, and thus he remains consistent. If you disagree that the bill does what he expects it to do, that is a valid argument and what we really should be discussing.

But Obama did not flip-flop.

[slipslidingaway]

30. So which groups agree with Obama that this will not infringe upon

on rights?

Again this is what he stated last year.

"... I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom..."


I am now supposed to believe that because HE believes the bill addresses HIS concerns it does not infringe upon our rights and therefore he has not changed his position???

[johnaries]

31. If we believe he is wrong, then it is our duty to tell him so.

He told us what his concerns were, and we agreed with them then. He believes this bill addresses those concerns. If you disagree, then you should tell him so and WHY. But he has not changed his position as so many keep saying. It is not a betrayal as some claim.

If you disagree with his interpretation, fine. That is the argument to make. But don't blame him if you originally misunderstood his position.

[slipslidingaway]

105. We'll have to agree to disagree, when someone says they

will protect my rights and then says they will vote for a bill that infringes on those rights I call that changing one's position.

[chriswallace112]

32. It's a little disappointing...

but this is the way that politics is played. Right now he is merely a senator and cannot do too much except look at the pre-packaged options and make the best decision. He said that the bill addressed his earlier concerns but he is still going to try to remove the retroactive immunity provision. So he got some but not all of what he wanted.

I just wonder when the pragmatist approach will end and O can concentrate on getting back all of the rights that we lost under Bush... oh yeah, starting January next year!

[johnaries]

43. Thank you!

Yes, come January it will be a different stroy entirely. For now, his options are very limited.

[slipslidingaway]

104. Merely a Senator who happens to have the cameras and

microphone in front of him constantly, why not take the message to the people and generate more support to defeat the bill?

[Enrique]

34. he said he'd filibuster any bill with immunity in it

now he's voting for such a bill.

[johnaries]

40. He is still working to strip immunity OUT of the bill. n/t

[dailykoff]

53. Too late, the cloture vote was last week and Obama was AWOL.

Call it reversal or call it flip flop, I call it a huge blunder.

[johnaries]

57. They didn't have the votes. Period.

[Enrique]

72. that's very different from filibustering it

he flip-flopped, face it.

My opinion of his flip-flopping? I guess I accept it.

[lostnotforgotten]

37. Obama Just Lost My Vote This Fall

So long Democrats!

[Occam Bandage]

41. Yeah, that worked really well in 2000, didn't it? Bush was exactly the same as Gore, right?

[rockymountaindem]

Bye

I'm pissed at this too but if you can't see that McCain would be a disaster (even if you don't hold out any hope that Obama might actually be a good Pres) then you're willfully ignorant.

[lostnotforgotten]

44. If The Left Wing Of The Democratic Party Cannot Demand Respect

When the hell do you think we will ever get it from Obama or anyone else for that matter.

I am tired, tired, tired of the Democratic party caving at every turn to the right wing chicken hawks that got us into this mess to begin with.

I cry foul loudly and angrily.

I don't want to hear anymore of this appeasement bullshit!

[johnaries]

48. Respect? WTF are you talking about?

Please go back and look at the rest of the thread. If you disagree with the FISA Bill, that's one thing. But calling Obama a "flip-flopper" when that is patently untrue is another matter entirely.

Obama says he is unhappy with the bill, but unfortunately it is the best we can get right now. After January, that should all change once Obama and not Bush holds the power of veto - but for now it is a simple reality.

[lostnotforgotten]

52. If You Truly Believe That I Have Some Land In Florida You Might Really Like

The political road is paved with good intentions.

Where is all this political courage that Obama routinely alludes to but has yet to show?

Missing in action it seems!

[johnaries]

60. You seem to be the one who has problems with reality.

Obama is showing great political courage. However, a compromise is always better than losing outright.

[lostnotforgotten]

62. My Reality Is Fine - Lifelong Progressive Liberal Here

Unlike you, I am tired of being spied upon.

[johnaries]

75. Obviously not, if you think I like being spied upon.

I don't like this bill. But I hate it less than the alternatives we've been given previously. Once Obama gets in office and has the power of veto and Dems have a meaningful majority in Congress, everything will be different.

My point is that people are unfairly attacking Obama for the wrong reasons. If you want to attack the bill, go ahead! I'll join you! But unfortunately it's the best we can do - for now.

But we can change that, later.

[johnaries]

42. Which makes me wonder if he really ever had it in the first place.

:shrug:

Do you plan to vote for McSame instead? What kind of FISA bill do you expect him to support?

[Occam Bandage]

39. Agreed. DUers are doing to him what RWers did to Kerry. Take a nuanced position,

tear half of it out of context, stick the other half in an entirely different context, and then say, "Aha! Flip-flopper!"

[johnaries]

45. Exactly, As others have stated his options right now are limited.

Hopefully, this will change in January if Dems get a REAL majority in Congress and Barack holds the veto power.

I like your username, btw!

:hi:

[dailykoff]

46. He did. He said he'd fillibuster a bill with immunity but he failed to voted against cloture.

So he's on the record as a flipper.

[lostnotforgotten]

47. And As A Flopper - No More Appeasement Bullshit I Say

The time to stand up and be counted is NOW!

[johnaries]

55. They didn't have the votes.

Notice Clinton didn't vote, either.

[dailykoff]

58. They didn't have HIS vote. HE promised to filibuster. HE didn't.

Call it whatever you want.

[johnaries]

61. With an 80-15 vote, how much difference would his vote have been?

If you know you can't win, it's better to try a different tactic. Remember, everything can change in January.

[dailykoff]

65. Look, he promised to support a filibuster and he didn't. He vanished.

Last week he said he was ready to get behind this "compromise" which actually a heinous RW giveaway of and poses a grave and serious threat to our democracy. So cheerlead all you want, but he made a huge mistake.

[Enrique]

74. so his flip-flopping is justified

maybe so, I'm not sure. But he flip-flopped.

And what does Clinton have to do with it? Throughout Obama's entire presidency, both terms, will people always justify Obama's inevitable disappointments by comparing him to Hillary?

[Lord Helmet]

49. Obama is innoculating himself against GOP slime.

He has been clear where he stands and the vote hasn't gone down yet. Much more to be revealed.

[dailykoff]

51. He's already getting slimed for caving. You think they didn't notice?

And you think they won't make a big stink about domestic spying the minute he votes yes, if he's foolish enough to?

[Lord Helmet]

54. what "they" will do is less important than Obama positioning himself to win

this is still in the discussion stage and it is premature to slam him just yet

[dailykoff]

56. Your whole rationale is based on what "they" will say. Well, here's what "they" will say:

they'll say he's an insincere opportunist who supports gutting the constitution for the sake of political convenience and probably also that he's hot to spy on all of us once he's in office.

[Lord Helmet]

63. no, that's not the basis for my rationale

in fact I couldn't care less what "they say" I'm just sayin' that this thing hasn't gone down yet and that it may not be what you seem to think. I think this is a tactical maneuver that hasn't completely unfolded yet. That's what I'm sayin'

[dailykoff]

68. Your phrase was "innoculating himself against GOP slime."

Believe it or not, that's a talking point, and has nothing to do with what the effect of a yes vote would actually be.

[Lord Helmet]

69. It's tactical, it's strategic. This is an election, remember?

[dailykoff]

73. You're buying a really weak rationale.

I've heard the talking points and seen the posts, but they're pure spin. Don't fall for it.

[Enrique]

76. that's correct, sometimes flip-flopping is poltically wise

that's why they do it.

[johnaries]

64. Republicans support domestic spying, remember?

Terra, terra, terra. They would slime him as weak on National Security, which they are already doing. It would just give them one more weapon.

[dailykoff]

66. Oh please. They support getting their stooge elected. Fox, CNN and ABC

will be running specials on how horrible this bill is just to make Obama look bad. When have they EVER been consistent, told the truth, or made a miligram of actual sense? :shrug:

[johnaries]

70. Oh, please, yourself. If he had voted against cloture, they would have painted him

weak on National Security. No matter what he does they are going to try and spin it against him.

If the best bill you can get is still flawed but better than the alternative, the best thing is to vote for it now and fix it later.

[dailykoff]

71. Yes, no matter what he does they'll spin it, so he'd better stick to his guns

or flip flop is one thing they'll be right on.

[johnaries]

78. But he did not flip flop.

If a filibuster had been possible, that's one thing. But a filibuster simply was not possible. In the end, whether he supported one or not did not matter. Ok, so he didn't vote against cloture. He didn't vote for it, either. It would make no difference either way and he knew that.

It's called "facing reality".

[dailykoff]

79. I'm not sure you're getting this. The cloture vote was the filibuster vote

and he didn't support it, after saying he would. Call it reversal if you want, but he pulled one.

[johnaries]

81. No, you're not getting it. Support or non-support was a moot point.

Why tilt at windmills?

[dailykoff]

82. What happens when the torture immunity bill comes up? Guantanemo?

Abu Ghraib? Extraordinary renditions? War crimes? Are you going to give Obama a pass when he tries to vote away accountability for all those too? I sure as hell am not.

[johnaries]

88. We're not talking about anything but the FISA Bill.

Don't go making things up with a bunch of non-sequitor "what ifs". That's a RW tactic.

[Larkspur]

67. There is no vaccine against GOP; slime

Just ask Tom Daschle who voted for IWR in 2002 and still faced an onslaught by the GOP. As I recall Daschle LOST to the GOP candidate.

[BlooInBloo]

84. There's absolutely no need whatsoever to put lipstick on this pig....

It sucks that *any* of our critters won't fight to their last breath against it, and it sucks even more that Obama won't.

It just fucking sucks.

It doesn't diminish my support for him for the Presidency against Crazy Old Man, though.

But there's no need to put lipstick on that piece of shit behavior on Obama's part. No matter what his reasons are.

[BuyingThyme]

87. Total bullshit.

FISA has always been fine as written. No legislation necessary.

[johnaries]

90. Nope! Electronics has changed a great deal since FISA was written

and the 1978 FISA bill is outdated when it comes to new survellience techniques.

[MarjorieG]

91. This may be best we can get without better majorities not veto-proof.

This can be re-visited. Obama has been concerned for a while about changing rationales on issues they'd demonize on security. Let's not help the oppostion by not understand the process, or understand complexity-of politics and policy.

As Kerry would say, legislation in imperfect, often yes-but, or no-but.

[johnaries]

93. Exactly. It can be re-visited later, when we can get a better bill passed.

[BuyingThyme]

92. Again, total bullshit.

That is a George W. Bush talking point. It's a lie he made up when he got caught committing a crime.

[johnaries]

94. It 's true, whether BushCo used it as a talking point or not.

Which is why it must be addressed, to close the loophole. This bill does not do a satisfactory job, IMO. But, we need something until we can get a better bill and this is the best we can do until we have better majorities and the veto power on our side.

But if we keep giving the GOP new talking points, we won't get those majorities or veto power.

[BuyingThyme]

95. More bullshit. There is absolutely no "loophole" of any kind.

But if you would like to provide evidence of this theoretical "loophole," I'd love to see it.

[johnaries]

96. Google "data-mining".

It falls into a very grey area.

on edit: And please stop yelling BULLSHIT each time you choose to show your ignorance. Inform yourself first, or else you look idiotic.

[BuyingThyme]

102. Data mining is illegal under the real FISA.

There's nothing gray-area about it.

[johnaries]

107. It's not targeting any individual, foreign or domestic. Therefore it is

legal under FISA - at least that's one interpretation. It's a very grey area, don't kid yourself.

[BuyingThyme]

115. So if I steal lots of cars, it's not theft?

[jgraz]

103. Bullshit. Read this and tell me he didn't flipflop

This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America, and that is why the fifth part of my strategy is doing the hard and patient work to secure a more resilient homeland.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

[johnaries]

109. OK, I read it. HE DIDN'T FLIP-FLOP! Maybe you should read it again.

He's not talking about revising FISA, he's talking about the President violating FISA. The original FISA revision had language that would take away oversight. That language has been removed. He is still working to have the immunity clause removed, but it is not as important as the oversight and Bush has promised to veto the bill without an immunity clause.

[slipslidingaway]

113. What are you referring to when you say...

"The original FISA revision had language that would take away oversight."


Is it something other than the Protect America Act of 2007?

[jgraz]

114. Oh really? What oversight does this new bill have that can't be trivially evaded?

Want to read someone's email? Just route it to an overseas server. Oh, and we just happen to already be routing all domestic internet traffic to overseas servers.

How conveeenient.