Obama will work to REMOVE Retroactive Immunity provision from FISA Senate version of Bill!

[FrenchieCat]

Barack Obama's statement on House passing FISA Compromise:

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_backing_fisa_compromise.php

[ingac70]

I'm so glad this man is our nominee!

Proud, in fact.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. The senate votes next week?

Yes?

[FrenchieCat]

2. I'm not sure on that.

But I'm sure that amendments will be offered. Should be interesting.

Certainly it is a compromise which is the best that we can get, as Bush is still the President, as long as the retroactive forgiveness is taken out.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

4. I'll withold judgment until the vote...

[MNDemNY]

6. Retro-active immunity is simply not acceptable.

[Bjorn Against]

33. It is not the "best we can get", they didn't have to pass any bill at all

Bush isn't supposed to control the Congress, they did not have to allow any bill to get to the floor. The current laws are more than sufficient, it is outright sickening that they would allow Bush to get away with his criminal actions. He should have been impeached for this, instead they are forgiving him and the telecoms of their crimes. This Congress disgusts me.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

36. the removal of retroactive immunity will be retroactive

hehehehehe

[high density]

3. Thanks

The other thread is kind of derailed by a headline.

[FrenchieCat]

5. That headline disappointed me greatly!

It's not enough that there are still those in the Dem wing of the party waiting to pounce on everything that Obama does that they don't like.....with the media doing the same with their Obama Flip Flop fraudulent reporting....but to now have this offered, and posters not reading beyond the headline to comment on their disappointment is ridiculous.

Headline count, even here.

[GarbagemanLB]

The real test is whether Obama will oppose the bill WHEN (not if) he fails to remove the immunity.

[uponit7771]

15. RIGHT!!!

[knight_of_the_star]

7. If he is

Then why did he endorse the House compromise?

[tbyg52]

11. That's "compromise," with quotes

The House did give immunity, just with bells and whistles. I'm wondering if Obama understands this.

[Hope And Change]

8. But will Obama vote for FISA if the retroactive immunity isn`t removed or will he vote against it?

[FrenchieCat]

29. Write him a letter and ask him, and tell him what you would prefer......

cause he hasn't voted yet.

[Jakes Progress]

44. When he was campaigning, he said

he would filibuster any form of the bill that included immunity. Think he will?

[Imagevision]

9. "so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses"

[ElsewheresDaughter]

10. that's a really really long shot

[DevonRex]

12. Obama is only ONE Senator right now. He has stated his position.

But think about THIS:

If he doesn't vote FOR the bill, even he he can't get retro immunity removed, then McCain will have a very RECENT vote to hang his hat on, claiming that Obama is soft on terrorists - because they're all Muslim, you know. :sarcasm: wink wink

That is the ONE area that McCain might be able to get some traction with. The bill expires in 2012. In the meantime, the Obama administration will have control of how it's used.

We may be unable to convict past aggressors, yes. I'd like to see them tarred and feathered, myself. So, what I really implore people to do is weigh the options here. What will get us to our goal of a democratic president, senate and house? Once those things are accomplished, life in America will be SO much better, for SO many reasons.

[Solon]

13. What's the point of getting a Democratic President and Congress if this is how they act?

The only thing motivating people to vote for Democrats is fear, fear that the Republicans are so much worse, which is true, but that's a really sad testament on the state of affairs in this country. Besides that, increasing executive power, by practically any means necessary, has always been a bi-partisan goal. Frankly I don't trust the neither party or their nominees with that sort of power.

[ananda]

41. Dems must filibuster this bill until NO compromise is reached.

ABsolutley no compromised.

Telecom immunity must be removed. Period.

[tomg]

51. Actually my fantasy is that

Obama leads a filibuster for days and he is struggling to stay awake, periodically CSPAN cuts to the gallery where Michelle is fighting back tears and then cuts down to Obama's intern who puts his/her Obama button back on. Just when it looks like Obama is going to collapse in the middle of the reading of the Declaration of Independence, there is a gunshot from outside the chambers and Liebermann has just tried to kill himself but is weeping "It's all true, it's all true. I lied. It is me you want to expel, not Obama." ( I know the part about Liebermann makes no sense, but you know)

All kidding aside, you're damn straight.

[Arkana]

14. Doesn't sound like he's selling out to me.

It also shows why the US Senate needs a "present" vote--yes, but with the provision that the bill needs work.

He's acknowledged that it's a compromise that's good but not great and said that he doesn't like the retroactive immunity clause.

Guess our knee-jerk crowd here forgot that politics is not about instant gratification--a good compromise, it is always said, leaves everyone mad.

[Jakes Progress]

43. What compromise?

The republicans got much more than they even asked for. A leader doesn't vote "present". A leader leads.

There is no reason to vote for this bill other than political cover. Trash the constitution for a few votes? Doesn't exactly match the rhetoric.

Gutting the fourth amendment to the constitution is not a bargaining point that a Democrat should use.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Stolen from Grancart's thread....

Should there be another terrorist incident between now and November and this bill was not passed then the Republicans would very likely be able to completely change the existing public sentiment and effect the results of the General Election. This, I believe, is why the Democratic Leadership decided it was better to take the issue off the table now and address it again after the election.

We can disagree on this point and wish they had stayed firm. Fine. To suggest criminal conspiracies, bribery and other hysterical theories is not simply overwrought it overlooks a much more obvious reason. Everything looks so simple to us at our level.

As for Senator Obama I find it outrageous that simply because he is our presumptive nominee that he now have to carry the mantle of righting every transgression of the Bush administration between now and November 4th. This is particularly true because he stood up when it wasn't popular.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6391733&mesg_id=6391733

[Jakes Progress]

45. So now we use the "terra"

defense? When george and john use it, we trash them.

We can put all the sugar on this we want. It is wrong.

[Cha]

17. I knew I could trust him..

damnit!

[warren pease]

18. So why in hell is it even coming up for a vote in the senate?

That's a rhetorical question and I know the two-word answer is "Harry Reid."

This is the part that I just don't get. Neither Pelosi nor Reid is compelled to do a damn thing with any bill. Of course, Ms. Nancy being a huge fan of the little emperor, I suppose she just couldn't hold herself back.

She gets all a-twitter whenever The Commander Guy gives her one of his smarmy ingratiating shit-eating grins, and she misses them so much that she's willing to subvert the Constitution and sell out the entire population just to earn another of those priceless smirks.

But Reid presumably doesn't get all gaga when Bushie grabs his arm or starts rubbing his shoulders in that sick way he has of irritating the shit out of anybody within range of his grubby little fingers.

So Reid gets another chance to stand on his hind legs and flip the rotten bastard off with both middle fingers. But everybody knows that's not what's going to happen.

What's going to happen is another brief standoff -- Reid flashing his Swiss Army knife while McConnell's calmly setting up his M-4 on a wide flat area by the edge of Cheney's throne.

Reid might actually have a pistol in an ankle holster so a few sand bags show up, courtesy of some large bald guys with sunglasses and wearing black leather with no identifying insignias on their jackets. But if you look really close, you can see a little discoloration on their collars where the double lightning bolts used to be.

So Mitch is ready, but Harry's nowhere to be seen. Pages are dispatched to find him. After a half hour or so, he turns up in an unused janitorial closet, hugging his quivering knees, face mottled red and white, struggling for breath. But he hasn't been idle.

On the floor next to him lies a sharply worded letter. Reid's poured out his heart and soul once again, and they've pooled on the floor and congealed into a kind of bloody spiritual mess that nobody wants to get within 10 feet of. But at least the letter's true to form.

Reid gets right to the point, which is only right since he's had enough practice over the past year-and-a-half. He begins by expressing his "disappointment" with McConnell's "inappropriate tactics." He bemoans this "unfortunate situation" and the "impropriety" of taking a gun to a knife fight.

Reid's aides tell him he's got it ass backwards, but all he can talk about is "disapproval" of such "thuggery" and McConnell's "antipathy to the ideals" of a "civilized deliberative body."

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah... and so on. Sounds about right, eh?

I think it's really "disappointing" that, with a fascist coup in place, a couple of psychotics running the show, empire on the march, and the entire country turned into SnitchLand USA(tm), the leaders these traitorous assholes chose were Pelosi and Reid.

That's like appointing a general who surrenders unconditionally the second a bugle boy gets hit in the leg with a spitball.


wp

[AuntPatsy]

19. Legitimate threats, is this speech saying he will vote for it?? And just

what does he feel poses as legitimate threats at this time that wiretapping of american citizens will continue? I read it all and it did not honestly lessen my anxiety, I'm sorry, I really am, I will vote for him, thats a given, but I wouldn't be honest with if I did not admit that I fear we will get more of the same style political game playing.

What bothered me most about how people just attacked Sen Clinton was that it now seems those same people refuse to hold Sen Obama to the same standards and if not, how do they believe change will be inevitable, frankly I began to believe it until today though I was not surprised, my hopes are not so high so that I become a basket case when someone does something that I might not agree with so today only kind of left me with a "oh well, thats politics" once again..

This is not a bashing post seriously, it's either Sen Obama or Mccain and God forbid that pathetic excuse for a so called hero ever gets in such a position where he has the power to touch any American's future in any way shape or form...

I honestly hope that your faith is justified, I've been disappointed one too many times to put such faith in anyone in the political sphear...
,

[janx]

20. Frenchie, I just wanted to check in and tell you how much I respect

you.

Some tough things are going down here, but I like to check into DU for politics. Anyway, keep on keeping on, as they say! You are amazing.

[FrenchieCat]

21. I am honored.

Thank you! :hi:

[Richard Steele]

22. K&R

[Catherina]

23. I'm sorry Frenchie. This is spineless pandering trying to have the cake and eat it too

There are certain issues you don't compromise on and the Fourth Amendment is one of them. My standards may be low but I still expected more from a constitutional lawyer.

All the Democrats who looked the other way or were in cahoots with Bush on these illegal activities are now scrambling to cover their asses. They're protecting each other at our expense again and protecting the telecoms from civil suits while spinning to give the appearance they're fighting retroactive immunity. Now watch Hillary come vote against it and singe his goose for him.

Another reason this really angers me is because many of us gave Obama the benefit of the doubt that he would have voted against IWR. Now, I'm not so sure anymore. As someone else put it, if he can't speak out now and LEAD on this issue then it's not change we can believe in. He seriously messed up with this pandering position calculated to appeal to both sides. Where's the leadership?

He has a few days to rethink this and make a huge splash leading the opposition against the retroactive immunity but that's not enough, the whole bill needs to go. Feingold, Wexler and Leahy have already made strong principled statements against it. They're showing a kind of leadership Obama isn't and this isn't reflecting well on him.

This is the time to make Obama listen. I won't stand for another Clinton-type presidency where empty promises are exchanged for votes and we spend the next 4 or 8 years defending them no matter what.

I still prefer him over McCain and Clinton but my standards can only sink so low. I draw the line at the constitution.

I've contacted Obama's Senate office and campaign HQs as well as my craven representatives over this to let them know I won't accept "we tried to compromise (again) but failed (again) so we had no choice (again)". They have a choice and so do I. It's time to speak out about our displeasure while he still has time to react.

He needs a swift tough love kick in the butt right now. As a faithful, hard-working support, I'm going to give it to him.

I don't care if Hillary people laugh at us saying "I told you so" because there's still no way I'd vote for and IWR cluster-bomb candidate. They can laugh all they want but Obama's not getting any cover because of it. I doubt most of them are laughing anyway because we're all in the same boat now.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Did you watch John Dean on KO this evening?

[uponit7771]

26. No, but since you're mentioning it I will look for it. Thank you, I need something to calm me down

[Catherina]

27. No. I just got home and with all the chores I don't watch KO until 11pm

What did Dean say? I'm really tired Frenchie. Like many activists, I put all my last hopes in Obama despite strong admonitions from respected people on the Left that he's not all he's cracking himself up to be. I'm not the only one in this boat. If Obama blows this, he's really blowing it because we gave him a new leaf during the Primaries and believed words. I HOPE he justifies your touching faith but I'm a bit more cynical, despite riding on hope this far. Maybe we should talk tomorrow. I'm feeling really low tonight and literally crying from disappointment. It seems like such a small thing but it doesn't feel that way.

So please tell me what Dean said but I don't think I'll be answering you until tomorrow. I feel like I was just kicked in the stomach but can't give in to it because Obama needs to be kicked in the shins right now. I'm so sorry. I'm just so terribly disappointed right now. Bear in mind this isn't the first disappointment with him but I put up with the others valiantly, barely voicing them here because the alternatives to Obama were that unattractive. I still plan to vote for him because he has my nuts in a vise but I don't like it. I'm so sorry.


I'm editting to add that I admire you very much for rallying the troops :hug:

Edit: Here's Kucinich on the issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM2HLbcUafA

God bless him.

[TexanDem]

31. John Dean on Olbermann - YouTube link >>>

http://youtube.com/watch?v=smcP43FVNqM

[Jakes Progress]

48. Thank you, Catherina.

You put it just the way it needs to be said.

The two lines I think we all need to pay attention to are:

"He needs a swift tough love kick in the butt right now. As a faithful, hard-working support, I'm going to give it to him."

and the phrase:

"because we're all in the same boat now"

This man is our candidate. He must listen to us. The hard work of many here helped put in in that position. It is tough love. He is doing the wrong thing and we are not doing him any favors by pretending he isn't. He's just a man, but he's our man. When he falters, it is up to us to help him rise to the potential that many here believe him capable of. I don't buy the "Never say a bad word about our candidate" theory. We've just had 8 years of that kind of crap. If we don't hold our candidate to his word and to the ideals of our party then we are just like the mindless simps that love george, and we just become republicans with a Prius.

[Raksha]

61. I agree - Obama needs to know that some issues are non-negotiable,

ESPECIALLY to his supporters, and that the days of "trust me" politics are OVER. I want to see him oppose this FISA bill with everything he's got. If he truly DEMONSTRATES his support for the Fourth Amendment rather than merely giving lip service to it and saying "trust me," everyone will know it and he'll win in a landslide.

Re I've contacted Obama's Senate office and campaign HQs as well as my craven representatives over this to let them know I won't accept "we tried to compromise (again) but failed (again) so we had no choice (again)". They have a choice and so do I. It's time to speak out about our displeasure while he still has time to react.

He needs a swift tough love kick in the butt right now. As a faithful, hard-working support, I'm going to give it to him.

[Blue_Roses]

24. kick

:kick:

[AZBlue]

28. Thank you for the post.

The false outrage here about this subject is palpable.

[invictus]

30. K&R!

[papapi]

32. Thanks Frenchie. I must say this seems thin on his part. . .

I'll wait and see if he opposes the Bill if has the immunity clause. I'd like to see him take a stand on this. It's an important issue.

[FrenchieCat]

34. John Dean and KO discussing Obama and the FISA bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smcP43FVNqM

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

35. er do you mean he will retroactively remove retroactive immunity?

just wondering if you could explain it.

[galledgoblin]

37. the retroactive immunity amendment bothers me more than anything else

we can go back and reinstall civil liberties, but we have only a small window to prosecute these war criminals. I will not see these torturers and mass murderers die comfortably in bed!

[FrenchieCat]

38. I don't think this is done yet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x149885

[ArkySue]

39. Will work in the Senate...

to remove that provision. Really?
When is he going to find the time to "work in the Senate" on anything? He's already too busy running for Prez to hold any hearings of the Foreign Relations Subcommitee that he chairs. The one dealing with NATO? Remember NATO? In Afghanistan??

And what if the provision isn't removed? Yea or Nay? Present??
Too busy to vote???
What say you?

[FrenchieCat]

40. Well we know that you wouldn't like Obama even if he kissed your ass......

I mean, come on.

[Jakes Progress]

49. Kinda nasty, don't you think?

I guess we could say that you would love him even if he shot yours. It swings both ways.

[FrenchieCat]

52. I am familiar with Arkie Sue going back to 2003........on the Clark Blog....and

I have followed her behavior and her language towards Sen. Obama here and on the current Security America blog....as well as her new membership to the Capitalhill forum (Hillary DUers who hate Obama and will not vote for him).

Please don't tell me what you don't know.

[Jakes Progress]

55. So you and she have a history.

So what. You don't do your position any favor by not addressing the arguments she makes. This isn't a personal, one on one, discussion forum. When someone brings up a point and you dismiss them with snark, you lose the argument. An outsider reading this would conclude that you hadn't considered the time factor, the reality of retroactively removing a retroactive provision. Then your answer to me seems to say that anyone who disagrees with Senator Obama is not to be listened to. For all I know the poster could be a freeper or a neocon plant. But dismissing an question on the basis of believing that anyone who asks a question is wrong, is not conducive to proving a point. If you have a point, defend it. If your post is just so much head-in-the-sand cheerleading, then you handled it just right.

You still see DU as a place to fight the Barack/Hillary wars. There are thousands of us who are past that and into the campaign. I think Obama's decision here is cowardly and his explanation is deceitful. Basically the republicans cornered him and he caved instead of fighting. He has the ability to make this right. His oratory skills would stand him well in the well of the Senate. Imagine the you tube repeats of the CNN coverage of him striding to the floor of the Senate and condemning this bill and the craven attack on the privacy rights of Americans. He would win in a landslide. We do him no good to just applaud his slinking away. He is our candidate because he wanted to show us how to win just this kind of battle. He isn't doing that right now. Maybe his team will figure this our, but right now, their best answer is to act just like the congressional democrats have been doing for the last six years. And here he gets applauded for that. It's hypocritical.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[janx]

56. I think you're in for a surprise. n/t

[janx]

46. K&R

:hi:

[Marie26]

47. Can someone help?

I'm looking on Obama's website & I don't see a section on "civil liberties". It's got pages on lots of issues - energy, immigration, etc. But I'm not seeing anything w/his position on civil liberties issues. Am I missing something? Thanks!

[Hope And Change]

57. Don`t know if this will satisfy you...

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights/

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/p/barack_obama.htm

[Marie26]

59. Thanks

No, the first two links don't satisfy me. Neither is about civil liberties - one is on civil rights (discrimination, hate crimes, etc.) which is a totally different issue; the other is on ethics reforms for lobbyists. The third link isn't from Obama's website - it has more info about his positions, but nothing about the Fourth Amendment, the right to privacy or the FISA issue.

I finally found this issue under the "technology" subhead. Here's what Obama says on his website:

"Safeguard our Right to Privacy: The open information platforms of the 21st century can also tempt institutions to violate the privacy of citizens. Dramatic increases in computing power, decreases in storage costs and huge flows of information that characterize the digital age bring enormous benefits, but also create risk of abuse. We need sensible safeguards that protect privacy in this dynamic new world. As president, Barack Obama will strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy.

1. To ensure that powerful databases containing information on Americans that are necessary tools in the fight against terrorism are not misused for other purposes, Barack Obama supports restrictions on how information may be used and technology safeguards to verify how the information has actually been used.
2. Obama supports updating surveillance laws and ensuring that law enforcement investigations and intelligence-gathering relating to U.S. citizens are done only under the rule of law.
3. Obama will also work to provide robust protection against misuses of particularly sensitive kinds of information, such as e-health records and location data that do not fit comfortably within sector-specific privacy laws.
4. Obama will increase the Federal Trade Commission’s enforcement budget and will step up international cooperation to track down cyber-criminals so that U.S. law enforcement can better prevent and punish spam, spyware, telemarketing and phishing intrusions into the privacy of American homes and computers."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/


So, basically, Obama doesn't have a problem w/"powerful databases" that contain information on Americans, because it is a "necessary tool in the fight against terrorism". He's OK w/it as long as that info isn't used for other purposes (ie political blackmail). That's very much in line w/the statement Obama released on the FISA bill - in which he called the bill a "necessary tool" in the war on terror. He's being totally consistent; he's not really backsliding or contradicting himself at all.

[MasonJar]

50. Let the telecons go to court and prove their innocence if they can.

This bill is ridiculous. Why should anyone get retroactive immunity from anything...because W does not want these companies in court telling all...about him. Why are the dems agreeing to this? Obama should have been out front on this since he obviously objects to the immunity. If he had been, then this bill would not have gotten this far.

[ooglymoogly]

54. I do not agree with Obama on this issue at all

Johnathan Turley, a constitutional lawyer, has said it weakens considerably the 4th amendment. Obama is not listening to more knowledged minds, specifically on constitutional law. This is a little scary in itself, however, if he gets the retroactive out of the bill then I will continue to marginally support him, going into the booth without enthusiasm. If he does not and votes yes, he will have lost my confidence altogether. Obama is the elected leader of the Democratic party and should have enough sway over the rest of the democrats in both house and senate to can this legislation and at the very least, to eliminate this outrageous clause. They do not need his vote to pass this legislation and he will have sullied his reputation by voting yes on such a flawed and self serving piece of dishonest CYA claptrap. This is wrong on so many levels it boggles the mind. HE SHOULD HAVE LEARNED BY NOW THE CONSTITUTION IS THE BLOODY RED LINE IN THE SAND AND YOU CROSS IT AT YOUR PERIL.

[totodeinhere]

60. The problem is that repealing that provision retroactively may be more easily said than done,

especially is the Repukes retain enough votes in the Senate to sustain filibusters. That's why the down ticket races are so important.

(Edit - I had meant to reply to the OP.)

[rebel with a cause]

58. Right on!

I am so sick of people downing Barack even before the vote has happened. If they feel so strongly on this they should be emailing him, or calling him at one of his numbers to let him know what they think.

Oh, did I mention the sky is falling. Better run for cover at some third party because Obama is going to disappoint you.:sarcasm: Give me a break!! For me it is still Obama '08.

[ooglymoogly]

62. Where does Lucy Goosy and Turkey lurkey come down on this...

and let us not forget they were all eaten by Foxy Loxy for their blind gullibility.

After the vote is too late.

Now is the time to voice opposition and you can bet he will be reading this.

P.S. I don't think any of us who are democrats have the faintest reservation to voting for Obama or any inkling to throwing a vote for a third party when push comes to shove.

[rebel with a cause]

64. I don't really care where they are to be truthful.

I believe in being skeptical but I don't see panicing and going to pieces before something happens.

You wrote "I don't think any of us who are democrats have the faintest reservation to voting for Obama or throwing a vote for a third party when push comes to shove." That is not what I read last night on threads here. There were posts advocating voting third party, just sitting it out, and etc. I have read a lot of BS here the last couple of days, and I just don't have the patience for it. I just want to see this administation out of control, being taken to task for what they have done, the war being ended, and constitution being restored. If that requires waiting five more months for this action to start, then I can wait the eight months for Obama to be in power before I begin to demand him to take those actions. If we loose site of what we need to be doing to get those in power out, then we will have four more years of mcbush light and four more years to regret another election.

[ooglymoogly]

65. And that my friend is what we all are fervently working toward

But not defending the constitution is not the way to get there.
This is not the time to go easy on Obama...we have to let him know we are going to hold his feet to the fire and we can't be taken for granted and that some issues are just not up for grabs. Issues such as the unraveling of the constitution. Imo the bottom line for us democrats is the constitution and when you allow an assault like this on that constitution it must raze the hackles on us all and we must let it be known that that is a fight to the death, for in the end that is what this marvelous thing we call democracy is all about.

[The River]

63. Thank You

The cries of betrayal, the gnashing of teeth and
beating of breasts over this story has been amazing.
I hope this puts and end to the "concern" posts.

[crankychatter]

66. k/r nt

[Orsino]

67. Obama is capitulating on retroactive immunity, you mean.

While I'm glad to hear his say he's not happy about doing so, the statement seems to mean that he has given up on this point for the foreseeable future.

[TBF]

68. I understand what Obama is doing, and I give him kudos.

We have an extremely volatile president right now who will not blink before bombing Iran, along with a crashing economy. I want Bush and his merry thugs carted off to prison like everyone else, but the problem is that the lunatic is still in the driver's seat.

Obama is a very smart man, and he can see what this administration is capable of. He's going to do whatever he can to keep things at an even keel and get them out so he can start fixing things. Is it the right way to go or is he giving in too much? I'm a pacifist and would like this transition go as smoothly as possible. It's anyone's guess as to what we'll be facing this fall, however, and whether it can happen the way Obama dreams. I figure we've got about a 50/50 shot that we can keep pushing Obama and get him elected. I'm going to do my best on that front to get him there.

The variables: how the conventions go (both Denver and Minneapolis - will McCain be the actual nominee), whether/when Bush attacks Iran, whether impeachment gains traction, how bad the economy crashes the next few months, etc...

[uponit7771]

69. Steph Miller just mentioned that it doesn't immunize telcos from CRIMINAL or CIVIL liability for pre

...911 actions just stuff after 911