On Olbermann Last Night...

[WillyT]

<snip>

Good evening from New York.

It was five years ago tonight, one of the low points in our democracy, like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution vote in 1964 or the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 or the declaration of war against Spain in Cuba in 1898. October 10, 2002, Congress voting to give President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq. On this October 10, this same president is trying claim authority that would allow him to spy on Americans without fear of retribution or oversight.

Our fifth story on the “Countdown,” Mr. Bush angrily threatened today that he will not sign the new eavesdropping bill for which he drools, if it does not grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunication companies conducting his surveillance for him.

What would those companies need protection from? The petulance of the president‘s words more evident than usual this morning on the South Lawn of the White House all because Congress has not given him everything he asked for in legislation that would extend the government‘s ability to monitor the phone calls or emails of suspected terrorists, even when they involve an American citizen.

Mr. Bush apparently angry because lawmakers are requiring some judicial oversight as well as some legal recourse for those who might find themselves abused by this program.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: My administration will work with members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to reach an agreement on a bill that will allow us to protect our country. The final bill must meet certain criteria. It must give our intelligence professionals the tools and flexibility they need to protect our country. It must keep the intelligence gap firmly closed and ensure that protections intended for the American people are not extended to terrorists overseas who are plotting to harm us. It must grant liability protection to companies who are facing multi-billion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: If the companies are only believed to have assisted, why would they need any immunity? As for the restrictions that would be imposed upon the Bush administration by the proposed legislation in amended form, they would not be all that restrictive. For example, in order to monitor phone calls or emails when U.S. citizens are involved, the administration would only be required to obtain so-called blanket warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. However, the warrant would only be good for a year and the administration would be allowed to wait 45 days before seeking the warrant. The current grace period is just 72 hours.

The measure would also place limits on collecting certain kinds of overseas communications by making a distinction between, for example, counter terror collection and intelligence that is strictly, quote, “in the furtherance of the foreign affairs of the U.S.” In other words, they would need to have an actual definable reason.

John Conyers, whose Judiciary Committee passed the bill out of committee without the immunity provision, saying quote: “The legislation before us today seeks to, once again, strike the appropriate balance between needed government authority and our precious rights and liberties.”

Time now to turn to our own Howard Fineman, senior Washington correspondent for “Newsweek” magazine.

Howard, good evening.

HOWARD FINEMAN, SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, “NEWSWEEK”: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: This phrase from the president this morning, “My administration will work from members of Congress with both sides of the aisle to reach an agreement,” is a variation of this again and again in all of his recent remarks about FISA, SCHIP health care legislation for children—and here again, does he mean work together to reach an agreement that pleases some people in some way or does he mean you haven‘t given me everything I have asked for yet?

FINEMAN: I think it‘s more the latter, Keith. I have talked to Democrats today who are describing to me these monthly bipartisan, bicameral meetings at the White House with the president. The way they go is everybody troops into the cabinet room. The president says what he wants to say. And then all of the members of Congress get to talk.

And according to the members of Congress, his attention kind of wanders. I mean, is he not making paper airplanes but he is not paying close attention. I think that‘s symbolic of the situation here. He doesn‘t really want to deal with them. He doesn‘t talk to them. He hasn‘t picked up the phone and called Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi in a long time, as far as I know, which would be the most direct route.

He wants the confrontations and victories because that‘s the way he shores up what‘s left of political support left in his own base.

OLBERMANN: What is this demand for immunity for companies that are even, in his own words, only believed to have participated in these activities that the administration claims are perfectly legal to begin with? This seems like a man saying, look over here, this is my Achilles heel. What is this all about?

FINEMAN: In talking to Democrats about that, I said if all of this was kosher and legal, as the president argues it was, what do these companies need protection for and immunity from? They can‘t answer that question because the administration won‘t give them the documents that the congressmen want to be able to investigate this. That‘s the situation that the Democrats find themselves in. And they are afraid to veto—they are afraid to have a confrontation with the president on this because they are afraid that, once again, he will maw-maw them on the terrorism issue.

OLBERMANN: Is there point at which—is there a tipping point relative to that point where it no longer matters and the number of vetoes outweighs the spinelessness of Democrats on this point?

FINEMAN: I don‘t know. I don‘t know, Keith. They Democrats in Congress still seem spooked by the notion that they can confront the president on something like this. They put all kinds of protection, at least in the House version, for what the president wants. You talk about the blanket warrants and so forth. They are still afraid to confront him over what seemingly would be a winning issue of letting the phone companies off the hook. But they seem to be afraid to do it. And I don‘t know when all of that will accumulate either to their benefit or to the president‘s harm. At this point, the president‘s numbers are so low with the general public he doesn‘t really seem to care.

OLBERMANN: To that point, let‘s assume that they grow backbone and the president vetoes the legislation, the administration does not get the right to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants anymore, and they don‘t get the immunity on the telecommunications companies, who would that really hurt, other than the president? How did the Democrats come to believe they would lose in that scenario?

FINEMAN: Well, for one reason. There is a legitimate concern about calls routed through the United States that we need to monitor and that do catch Americans in the net, so to speak. The Democrats are addressing that concern but they are afraid that they lose any argument in the general public on this topic. But, if they don‘t make the attempt, then they are going to lose both ways.

OLBERMANN: Howard Fineman of MSNBC and “Newsweek.” As always, thanks and particularly for that explanation right there. Thanks, Howard.

FINEMAN: Thank you, Keith.

<snip>

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21249436/

Our friend arw wavering too, ya know?

:wtf:

[Gloria]

1. I saw this last night and thought it was quite on the money.....

The conclusion about "losing both ways" is especially accurate.

The Democrats will manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[WillyT]

2. THAT... Is Exactly What I'M Afraid Of...

Thank you.

:hi: