This again from Keith Olbermann on FISA, a
second Special Comment. Transcript below . . . but you
must watch and listen to get the full impact . . .
"Democrats in the House of Representatives are closing the shop down tonight, until a week from Monday… leaving President Bush twisting slowly in a wind of his own creation.
Our third story on the Countdown: the FISA bill — and the retroactive immunity for the telecom giants that helped Mr. Bush illegally eavesdrop on Americans — will thus just sit there, unacted upon, not even a temporary extension which the Republicans and Mr. Bush refused, despite the President’s threats that if the bill isn’t passed by Saturday, there’d be a breakdown in counter-terrorism surveillance and plagues of locusts and stuff.
A Special Comment, in a moment.
First the details.
House Democrats, in essence, calling the Republicans’ bluff.
They staged a walkout at mid-day… led by John Boehner, who in one act managed the cheesy political theater, and managed to get out just as Representatives were to vote on Contempt of Congress citations against Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten.
That the Republicans just happened to walk to a stand-full of microphones… pure coincidence.
The President had started all this, with his now-daily message of fear, with what he apparently sees as a threat, to postpone his scheduled trip to Africa.
The House should not leave Washington without passing the Senate bill. I am scheduled to leave tomorrow for a long-planned trip to five African nations. Moments ago, my staff informed the House leadership that I’m prepared to delay my departure, and stay in Washington with them, if it will help them complete their work on this critical bill. The lives of countless Americans depend on our ability to monitor terrorist communications.
Having lost, he now says he’s going to Africa — another threat, or promise, unfulfilled.
Now, as promised, a Special Comment.
A part of what I will say, was said here on January 31st.
Unfortunately it is both sadder and truer now, than it was, then.
“Who’s to blame?” Mr. Bush also said this afternoon, “Look, these folks in Congress passed a good bill late last summer… The problem is, they let the bill expire. My attitude is: if the bill was good enough then, why not pass the bill again?”
You know, like The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Or Executive Order 90-66.
Or The Alien and Sedition Acts.
Or Slavery.
Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger.
Yet you have weakened that ability!
You have subjected us, your citizens, to that greater danger!
This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough even for you to understand.
For the moment, at least, thanks to some true patriots in the House, and your own stubbornness, you have tabled telecom immunity, and the FISA act.
You.
By your own terms and your definitions — you have just sided with the terrorists.
You got to have this law or we’re all going to die.
But practically speaking, you vetoed this law.
It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an Ex Post Facto law, which could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive, and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail.
But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn’t even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared.
“The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America.” Believed?
Don’t you know?
Don’t you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you?
Does this endless presidency of loopholes and fine print extend even here?
If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business — come out and say it!
There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend.
You’re a fascist — get them to print you a t-shirt with “fascist” on it!
What else is this but fascism?
Did you see Mark Klein on this newscast last November?
Mark Klein was the AT&T Whistleblower, the one who explained in the placid, dull terms of your local neighborhood I-T desk, how he personally attached all AT&T circuits — everything — carrying every one of your phone calls, every one of your e-mails, every bit of your web browsing into a secure room, room number 641-A at the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco, where it was all copied so the government could look at it.
Not some of it, not just the international part of it, certainly not just the stuff some spy — a spy both patriotic and telepathic — might able to divine had been sent or spoken by — or to — a terrorist.
Everything!
Every time you looked at a naked picture.
Every time you bid on eBay.
Every time you phoned in a donation to a Democrat.
“My thought was,” Mr. Klein told us last November, “George Orwell’s 1984. And here I am, forced to connect the big brother machine.”
And if there’s one thing we know about Big Brother, Mr. Bush, is that he is — you are — a liar.
“This Saturday at midnight,” you said today, “legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning, will be compromised…You said that “the lives of countless Americans depend” on you getting your way.
This is crap.
And you sling it, with an audacity and a speed unrivaled even by the greatest political felons of our history.
Richard Clarke — you might remember him, sir, he was one of the counter-terror pro’s you inherited from President Clinton, before you ran the professionals out of government in favor of your unreality-based reality — Richard Clarke wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer:
“Let me be clear: Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire. If this were true, the president would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year.”
You are a liar, Mr. Bush, and after showing some skill at it, you have ceased to even be a very good liar.
And your minions like John Boehner — your Republican congressional crash dummies who just happen to decide to walk out of Congress when a podium-full of microphones await them — they should just keep walking, out of Congress and if possible, out of the country.
For they — and you, sir — have no place in a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
The lot of you, are the symbolic descendants of the despotic middle managers of some banana republic, to whom “Freedom” is an ironic brand name, a word you reach for, when you want to get away with its opposite.
Thus, Mr. Bush, your panoramic invasion of privacy is dressed up as “protecting America.”
Thus, Mr. Bush, your indiscriminate domestic spying becomes the focused monitoring, only of “terrorist communications.”
Thus, Mr. Bush, what you and the telecom giants have done, isn’t unlawful, it’s just the kind of perfectly legal, passionately patriotic thing for which you happen to need immunity!
Richard Clarke is on the money, as usual.
That the President was willing to veto this eavesdropping, means there is no threat to the legitimate counter-terror efforts underway.
As Senator Kennedy reminded us in December:
“The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity.
No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he’s willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.”
And that literally cannot be.
Even Mr. Bush could not overtly take a step that actually aids the terrorists.
I am not talking about ethics here.
I am talking about blame.
If the President seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it means we can safely conclude… there is no baby.
Because if there were, sir, now that you have vetoed an extension of this eavesdropping, if some terrorist attack were to follow…
You would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists…
You would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people…
You would not merely be guilty of stupidity…
You would not merely be guilty of treason, sir…
You would be personally, and eternally, responsible.
And if there is one thing we know about you, Mr. Bush, one thing that you have proved time and time again… it is that you are never responsible.
As recently ago as 2006, we spoke words like these with trepidation.
The idea that even the most cynical and untrustworthy of politicians in our history — George W. Bush — would use the literal form of terrorism against his own people — was dangerous territory. It seemed to tempt fate, to heighten fear.
We will not fear any longer.
We will not fear the international terrorists — we will thwart them.
We will not fear the recognition of the manipulation of our yearning for safety — we will call it what it is: terrorism.
We will not fear identifying the vulgar hypocrites in our government — we will name them.
And we will not fear George W. Bush.
Nor will we fear because George W. Bush wants us to fear."
Help
Sign In
Obama
January 2009 
Access: Public
![[Obamarama.jpg]](http://bp0.blogger.com/_aLGQf5G_Dr8/R60CQtVTebI/AAAAAAAABas/YXpWZv-nI0M/s1600/Obamarama.jpg)
Posted January 30, 2008 | 02:57 PM (EST)
For reasons mentioned by James Carville, who called him "the most qualified person ever to run for president," and Larry Sabato (Prof. at U of Virginia) who said "if he gets the nomination, the Republicans all say they are dead," I thought Bill Richardson would have been the best choice both for the nomination to win a broad victory and to serve as president. Alas, that is not to be. Thus, I come to the question of Barack vs. Hillary without bias based upon early choice, but with a recognition of the importance of emotional factors both in making choices and in leadership. [In reading further, I urge people to consider that this is NOT about what Hillary or Barack deserve, but what the American people need and deserve].
The Clintons would bring to the White House almost everything Democrats and progressives have found wanting with George Bush: a refocus on the middle class, some winding down of the Iraq War, a push for universal health care, appointing non-ideologues to the Supreme Court, a return to policy based upon facts rather than wished-for beliefs, a push against global warming, and reaching out to the world at large without arrogance and without messianic zeal (note what he first four letters of "messianic" spell!).
So would Barack Obama.
I would give Barack more "credit" on his commitment to remove the troops, and thus more likely to happen, and to happen soon, than the Clintons who still have not said anything negative about the decision to go to war except that it was poorly executed, and would not have supported it if she knew then how badly it would have been run. Moreover, Barack's prescience (like Jim Webb's) of the consequences of invading and occupying Iraq bespeaks a judgment that would make it more likely to avoid future foreign policy disasters; that said, I suspect an "Iraq syndrome" will stay the hands of the Clintons from embarking on misadventures.
Notwithstanding Hillary's claims to experience, I have heard nothing to suggest she has any executive experience, nor any experience in preventing or combating terrorism, her "day 1" argument.
Indeed, Barack has more experience in national politics than Bill Clinton had when he took office, and 8 vs. 12 years in state government compared to Bill Clinton himself. Thus, it is hard to see much daylight between Barack and Hillary on relevant experience.
Certainly, not enough to be dispositive. Bill Clinton just addressed a rally in which he pointed out that spending $30B now to save people from foreclosures is better than $300B a year from now when 1,000s have already lost their homes, and indicated that that was what presidential leadership was all about. Not controversial, except the implication was that Hillary saw this all coming a year ago and suggested pre-emptive action. She didn't. She offered her proposals after the subprime crisis had been talked about for weeks.
There is nothing the Clintons bring to the election or the presidency that Barack Obama does not.
The converse, however, is not true.
One could not put the strength of Barack's emotional appeal, and its importance, any better than Caroline Kennedy did. We could add that his persona itself provides people hope that they, too, can live out their dreams.
Moreover, as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, Barack's background provides a connection to the third world, where most of our problems reside, that no other person has ever had. What most Americans do not realize is that the third world views Americans as exploitative, but view minority Americans as part of the exploited. Thus, there is a natural empathy between minority Americans and third world people and leaders. Whether irrational or not, it is real. That minority status doubtless helped Bill Richardson establish rapport with hostage-holders. With Obama as president, that emotional connection could provide the United States not just a return to respect among our friends, but an opening to the rest of the world that we desperately need.
Barack also brings the real chance of major healing and reconciliation in this country's politics, whereas the Clintons bring a certainty of sharpened divisions. Irrational, or psychotic as it may be, nothing the Clintons or their surrogates say can say or do will change that fact. Their dye has been cast.
If, as it appears, McCain is the Republican nominee, an Obama nomination would mean the stark contrast between the past and the future. Hillary as the nominee would solidify the right-wing, who otherwise cannot abide McCain, behind him. With McCain's appeal to independents, Hillary might find it difficult to compete in the midwest and west. With McCain's prominent role in comprehensive immigration reform, he would not be automatically dismissed by the hispanic community.
Then, we must consider how Congress will operate with Hillary as President compared to Barack as President. The key is the Senate. If the Democrats do not have a filibuster-proof majority (i.e., 60 votes, an unlikely achievement ESPECIALLY if Hillary headed the ticket), Republicans will have the power of obstruction. They have wielded that power without shame, and largely without an echo-chamber of criticism that the Democrats endured, for example, when they blocked radical rightwing judicial nominees.
With Hillary as President, and for the same reasons as mentioned above, Senate Republicans will find it difficult to enable a Clinton presidency by compromise without their base going ballistic. The same is not true for Obama. Hence, more of the common agenda among all the Democratic candidates will likely become reality.
Then, there is Bill Clinton himself. What would be better for the country, having him reprise his role as "elder statesman" as he would do in an Obama presidency, or having him continue his erratic, and sometimes destructive, performance during the campaign into another stint in the White House? Just as I wrote in "How Handlers Have Hurt Hillary" (January 7, 2008), putting the same general in charge of two different wars is not a good idea -- much time and effort is expended trying to prove that mistakes of the first war (in this case, first term) were not really mistakes at all.
Finally, while the Clintons might look for bipartisanship (getting Republican votes for some compromise measures), Barack seeks transcendence. That is, Barack's vision is not to craft compromises between liberals and conservatives, but rather to forge new majorities that abolish the divisions of the past that are old, tired and false.
To gauge how false they are, consider how the rightwing masks its true intentions regarding social programs such as Social Security and Medicare -- they claim all they are doing is "improving" or "strengthening" those programs, they cannot say honestly that they want them to "die on the vine" (Newt Gingrich) because they know they are popular. The only modestly positive legacy George Bush will have is the introduction of Medicare Part D, paying for prescription drugs.
Barack Obama offers the country everything that Hillary Clinton does -- and much more.