| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2008/6/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50403 Activity:nil |
6/27 In a blistering condemnation of President Bush's willingness to go to
the wall for corporations he relies on to spy on Americans, MSNBC host
Keith Olbermann says the president's message in his State of the Union
address calling for immunity of telecommunications companies is a
"textbook example of fascism."
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Olbermann_rails_against_Bush_fascist_telecom_0201.html
Obama votes for FISA bill with immunity of telcoms.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/26/politics/politico/main4212811.shtml
Yesterday, Olbermann says:
"Senator Obama also refusing to cower even to the left on the subject
of warrantless wiretapping. He's planning to vote for the FISA
compromise legislation, putting him at odds with members of his own
party . . . But first, it's time to bring in our own Jonathan Alter,
also, of course, senior editor of "Newsweek" magazine."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/26/olbermann/index.html |
| 5/23 |
|
| rawstory.com/news/2007/Olbermann_rails_against_Bush_fascist_telecom_0201.html In a blistering condemnation of President Bush's willingness to go to the wall for corporations he relies on to spy on Americans, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann says the president's message in his State of the Union address calling for immunity of telecommunications companies is a "textbook example of fascism." Bush and Congressional Democrats are in a pitched fight over whether to free telecoms from legal liability as part of an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The president says the companies should be rewarded for their cooperation in the war on terror; critics say legal immunity would preclude any oversight of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program that ensnared US citizens. Olbermann accused Bush's threat to veto any bill without immunity of aiding the terrorists, when coupled with his threat that failing to act on a permanent FISA expansion would weaken US national security. "You told Congress, if you do not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened, and our citizens would be in greater danger," Olbermann said. You will subject us, your citizens, to that greater danger. If Congress approves a new FISA act without telecom immunity, and sends it to your desk, and you veto it, you, by your own terms and your own definitions, you will have just sided with the terrorists." The host further excoriated Bush for refusing to even acknowledge corporate assistance, always couching his calls for immunity by describing companies "believed" or "alleged" to have assisted his still-classified program. "If you, sir, are asking Congress and us to join you in this shameless, breathless, literal textbook example of fascism, the merged efforts of government and corporations who answer to no government, you still don't have the guts to say the telecom companies did assist you in your efforts?" "Will you and the equivocators who surround you like a cocoon never go on the record about anything? Ironically, Olbermann notes, that Vice President Dick Cheney did go on the record about telecom involvement, when he spoke to conservative talker Rush Limbaugh Wednesday. "The Vice President probably shouldnt have phoned in to the Rush Limbaugh Propaganda-Festival yesterday. Sixth sentence out of Mr Cheneys mouth: The FISA bill is about, quote, 'retroactive liability protection for the companies that have worked with us and helped us prevent further attacks against the United States,'" Olbermann said. Some critics dismissed Olbermann as a hyberbolic ranter who relies on over-the-top rhetoric. "Olbermann: 'It begins to look like the bureaucrats of the Third Reich trying to protect the Krupp family industrial giants by literally rewriting the laws of Germany for their benefit. On Monday, the Senate will resume debate on the FISA expansion, after Republicans backed off their demands that all proposed amendments be subjected to a 60-vote majority, according to Congressional Quarterly. The subscription-only Capitol Hill journal reports: Three amendments to be voted on next week will address retroactive immunity for companies being sued for allegedly assisting the National Security Agency in its warrantless surveillance program. One, by Democrats Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Christopher J Dodd of Connecticut, would simply remove the immunity provisions, which are a priority for the Bush administration. Some critics see the move as just another GOP gambit to block immunity from passing. writes Glenn Greenwald, a prominent blogger covering the FISA fight. "But then, there are other amendments which might be able to get 50 votes, but cannot get 60 votes -- such as Feinstein's amendment to transfer the telecom cases to the FISA court and her other amendment providing that FISA is the "exclusive means" for eavesdropping -- and, thus, those are the amendments for which the GOP insisted upon a 60-vote requirement." "Big Brother machine" to funnel every piece of communication crossing AT&T's wires into an NSA database. "This isn't about finding that kind of needle in a haystack, this isn't even about finding that haystack" Olbermann said. "This is about scooping up every piece of hay there ever was." This video is from MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast January 31, 2008. |
| www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/26/politics/politico/main4212811.shtml Barack Obama, defending him against attack from Hillary Rodham Clinton and others. But with his support of a government surveillance bill that offers retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies - a bill that he vowed last year to filibuster - the honeymoon has ended. Disappointed over his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the online activists feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials. One prominent blogger, Atrios, has even given him the moniker Wanker of the Day. Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasnt. The FISA debate marks the presumptive Democratic nominees first serious break from the liberal Netroots in the general election. He is still their candidate, but the FISA issue has reignited skepticism among major bloggers, who had largely pushed aside doubts about Obama when Edwards, their favored candidate, ended his bid in February. Obamas post-partisan persona hasnt always meshed so well with the noisy and contentious Netroots, and his rise to prominence has come without their full-throated support. He told reporters in February that he doesnt read blogs and has long been viewed as cool to the Netroots - a notion that the candidates new media director, Joe Rospars, disputed this week at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York, saying Obama was a favorite of the readers of the major bloggers. Either way, the Netroots eventually took Obamas side against Clinton, and some came to view him as a champion of progressive causes. His stance on the FISA bill, however, has brought Obama back down to earth, in part because the liberal blogosphere cares more about civil liberties than many of the other traditional issues that have long dominated the Democratic agenda. While the mainstream media fixated on Obamas decision to opt out of the public financing system - and newspaper editorial boards eviscerated him - the Netroots commended Obama for showing political savvy. After all, the readers of liberal blogs are many of the small donors who gave Obama reason to reject public financing. Many of the most popular progressive blogs built their following by mining anger toward President Bush, the Iraq war and what bloggers view as his disregard of the Constitution and the civil liberties guaranteed by it. By granting immunity to telecom companies, civil courts will likely dismiss lawsuits that might unearth details about the administrations activities, eliminating an opportunity to hold Bush accountable. If we can get that information, we can make sure they dont do that again. Obamas decision to support the bill with the immunity provision was not surprising, she said. Republicans frame critics of such security measures as soft on terrorism, and the presumptive Democratic nominee probably does not want it used against him. lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed, Hamsher said. The liberal blogospheres most recognizable name, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of Daily Kos, said Monday on MSNBCs Countdown With Keith Olbermann: "Lets be honest, it is either Obama or John McCain. At stake for Obama in the FISA vote is the intensity of support for Obama, Moulitsas said. I dont want to hear him talk about defending the Constitution. If he does, it will increase the intensity and level of support he gets from base Democrats. If he doesnt, we may worry he is just another one of these spineless Democrats who are more afraid of controversy in doing the right thing than they are in actually doing the right thing. Already, Blue America PAC, a liberal online fundraising group, says it has raised more than $320,000 to fund activities holding our elected representatives responsible for rubber-stamping the most grievous aspects of the Bush Regimes agenda. org has called upon its members to pressure Obama to keep his word and block the bill. Obama gave no indication that he would support a filibuster, and a press aide did not respond to requests for clarification on this point. The Senate overwhelmingly rejected the filibuster attempt Wednesday, voting 80-15 to end debate and move to final passage Thursday. Obama, who was not present for Wednesday's test vote, is expected to vote for an amendment stripping out the immunity provision. But even if the effort fails, as it has in the past, Obama would likely back the underlying bill. By taking this position, Obama is threading the needle between Republican charges that he is weak on security and the desires of the Democratic base. To allay critics claims that he is giving a pass to the Bush administration, Obama aides pointed to a provision in the bill that requires an inspector generals review of the surveillance program. It is not all that I would want, Obama said of the legislation, which was negotiated by congressional leaders of both parties. 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. Obamas statement was viewed as a reversal from a pledge last year to oppose any bill with retroactive immunity for telecom companies. But Obama told reporters Wednesday that the bill has changed from when that pledge was made, saying the latest version satisfied several of his concerns. Dan Gerstein, a New York political consultant who supports Obama and former longtime aide to Sen. This is really an important initial test for Obama, he said. People will be looking at this to see whether he has the strength and independence to stand up to his friends and a significant support base and say, I think this is right, and I am going to hold firm in my position. The Netroots will be watching Thursday as the Senate considers the bill - and whether Obama simply casts his vote or whether he takes a strong stand in a floor speech. The fear out there is that Obama is going to fail to live up to expectations on key issues, and that reinforces the notion that uh-oh, we picked the wrong candidate, when the focus should really be on the fact that the Bush administration broke the law with the help of private companies, said Warren Street, a blogger at the Blue Girl, Red State bog. Mandela Celebrates 90 Years(1:18) 46664 people turned out to celebrate Nelson Mandela's birthday in London's Hyde Park-- the same number assigned to the anti-apartheid activist when he was imprisoned in South Africa. |
| www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/26/olbermann/index.html Glenn Greenwald Thursday June 26, 2008 07:22 EDT Keith Olbermann: Then and now (updated below - Update II) On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. 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 email." Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a "shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism -- the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government." Noting the numerous telecom lobbyists connected to the Bush administration, Olbermann said: This is no longer just a farce in which protecting telecoms is dressed up as protecting us from terrorists conference cells. Now it begins to look like the bureaucrats of the Third Reich, trying to protect the Krupp family, the industrial giants, re-writing the laws of Germany for their benefit. Olbermann closed by scoffing at the idea that telecom amnesty or revisions to FISA were necessary to help National Security: There is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or protecting the people from terrorism, Sir. This is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or pretending to protect the people from terrorists. Sorry, Mr Bush, the eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat the thwarting of which could hinge on an email or phone call that is going through Room 641 of AT&T in San Francisco. But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections. There wasn't a syllable uttered about "immunizing corporate criminals" or "textbook examples of Fascism" or the Third Reich. There wasn't a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama's bravery and strength -- as evidenced by his "standing up to the left" in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise: OLBERMANN: Asked by "Rolling Stone" publisher, Jann Wenner, about how Democrats have cowered in the wake of past Republican attacks, Senator Obama responding, quote, "Yeah, I don't do cowering." Senator Obama also refusing to cower even to the left on the subject of warrantless wiretapping. He's planning to vote for the FISA compromise legislation, putting him at odds with members of his own party . But first, it's time to bring in our own Jonathan Alter, also, of course, senior editor of "Newsweek" magazine. This is part of the message that is consistent across the last couple weeks and it comes down to one word -- strength. The United States is not going to elect a president that perceives to be as weak. You look weak if you're not taking actions that seem to be securing the United States against terrorists. And you look weak if you don't fight back against your political adversaries. OLBERMANN: But this cuts, I mean, this terminology cuts in more than one direction here. Not cowering to Republicans is one thing in the Democratic, recent Democratic history, it's a thing that I think anybody who has a "D" near their name cheers, but not cowering to the left, not going along with the conventional, the new conventional thinking on the FISA bill, that's something altogether different, isn't it? It was only a matter of time before the left was disappointed in Barack Obama, at least in a limited way. No politician is ever going to do everything that somebody likes. And I think some folks in the netroots in particular on this FISA bill who are, you know, pulling their hair out over this, they have to realize, he's always been a politician, he'll always be a politician, and politics is the art of the possible. He knows that you can't always get everything that you want in a bill, even if he personally believes that the immunity for Telcoms is a bad idea. And I actually think one of the big points, Keith, that hasn't been made about this bill is that currently, as of last August, since last August, we've been operating in an unconstitutional environment, clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. So, there was tremendous urgency to get the FISA court back into the game. But it does do it and it restores the Constitution, which is a point that's not getting made very much. Leave aside the fact that Jonathan Alter, desperate to defend Obama, doesn't have the slightest idea of what he's talking about. How can a bill which increases the President's authority to eavesdrop with no warrants over the current FISA law possibly be described as a restoration of the Fourth Amendment? That would be like describing a new law banning anti-war speech as a restoration of the First Amendment. Marty Lederman both note, not even the nation's most foremost FISA experts really know the full extent to which this bill allows new warrantless spying. Obviously, Jonathan Alter has no idea what he's saying, but nonetheless decrees that this bill -- now that Obama supports it -- restores the Fourth Amendment. Those are the Orwellian lengths to which people like Olbermann and Alter are apparently willing to go in order to offer their blind devotion to Barack Obama. Moreover, Alter's own explanation is self-contradictory. In the course of praising Obama's FISA stance, he says that a politician looks "weak if you're flip-flopping" and "you look weak if you don't fight back against your political adversaries." telecom amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping, all in order to give the right-wing of the GOP everything it wants on national security issues in order to avoid a fight. By Alter's own reasoning, what Obama's doing is "weak" in the extreme, yet Alter bizarrely praises Obama for showing "strength." All of the decades-old, conventional Beltway mythologies are trotted out here to praise Obama. Democrats move to the "center" by embracing hard-core right-wing policies. Democrats will look "weak" unless they turn themselves into Republican clones on national security. A President becomes "strong" when he tramples on the Constitution and the rule of law in the name of keeping us safe. Democrats must embrace the Right and repudiate the base of their own party, and they must support Dick Cheney's policies while "standing up to the ACLU." That's the mentality that led large numbers of Democrats to vote for the attack on Iraq, and then ignore and/or enable the whole stable of Bush's lawlessness and other radical policies ("that's how we'll avoid looking weak and liberal"). Those Move-to-the-Center cliches just tumble reflexively out of the mouths of every standard Beltway establishment pundit. What's much more notable is Olbermann's full-scale reversal on how he talks about these measures now that Obama -- rather than George Bush -- supports them. On an almost nightly basis, Olbermann mocks Congressional Democrats as being weak and complicit for failing to stand up to Bush lawbreaking; now that Obama does it, it's proof that Obama won't "cower." Grave warning on Olbermann's show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution. Is that really what anyone wants -- transferring blind devotion from George Bush to Barack Obama? Are we hoping for a Fox News for Obama, that glorifies everything he says and whitewashes everything he does? an interview yesterday about the Democrats' support for the FISA bill to Olbermann's absurd effort to depict Obama as courageous for supporting it: It's the latest chapter of running for cover when the Administration tries to intimidate Democrats on national security issues. It's the most embarrassing failure of the Democrats I've seen since 2006, other than the failure to vote to end the Iraq War. It's letting George Bush and Dick Cheney have their way even though they're that unpopular and on their way out. It isn't that difficult ... |