John Conyers seemed to me to have the rest democratic argument:(rough quote) 'They want us to give immunity to the telephone companies without telling us what they did. How can we give immunity without knowing what we're immunizing ?'

Interesting . . . McConnell says that the current warrants put them "into the August, September time frame" (when they would expire?).

So, given they still have a year left on the warrants they currently have, and the latest ones he says are expiring in August, the is he saying that they haven't received any new warrants since *last* August (August 2007)?

Did he just reveal classified information?

... and don't forget this, if Hillary Clinton is elected, she will not be very much different then this same-old song still being repeated.

Hillary has been in lock-step with these fools since Day 1 (voting for Iraq, voting for the Iran issue, etc., etc.)

This is why we need Obama, if for nothing else but to just change these gosh-darn dynamics!!!!

Barb

Those jerks in the White House are praying for something, anything, to hang their hats on right now. If some unsuspecting Arab spits on the street in front of a U.S. Embassy anywhere in the world, the Bushies will call that a terrorist attack.

I know we all know this, but the thing to stress is that the telecoms don't need any protections if they don't do anything illegal.

I had probably under estimated the incumbant peril facing the voters this year, but in MD that seemed to be an issue.

I find it hard for me to believe that there is this great concern on the part of the voters, the public to rally to the phone companies defense in this issue.

In fact when you look at the way that cell phone contracts are managed, the late fees, the promises of deregulation that never materialized, the accumulation of roll-over minutes that vanish if you opt a cheaper plan, and then the penalties accrued if you exceed minutes, I mean honestly find me a consumer with a bleeding heart for the Telcos?

I beleive that in part Obama's appeal to voters is his statements that he is a constitutional scholar and will respect the constitution, I also think that the willingness of people to 'carry the bucket' for the Telcos, both short-term and long-term, are understanding that the politicizing of this is costing them votes and more importantly credibility.

I have gone VOIP and use Vonage and Comcast for phone, and have started leaving my cell phone turned off, and using the smallest plan they offer, and I'm looking for a better deal.

But in a tough economy, crying the blues for the telcos for immunity is a tough sell.

Americans have a real firm sense of fair play, have instant replay in football, watch law and order, know the Sgt. Joe Friday Miranda speech.

I haven't any idea or belief that this immunity plea sells any further than the beltway, and outside a increasiongly smaller MSM base, NYC, LA, DC, etc.. this is not part of the American experience.

Quite the opposite, the Telocs have acted horribly with their monopoly with cell bill rates and rules, and only those divorced from that reality would believe that there is a "crying game" in the general public for the telcos or a desire to see them not held accountable.

Any speech in a spot ad directly citing telco immunity will be gold this fall if the economy does not improve dramatically, or Telcos drop their fees.

At the very least the telcos could have said they were sorry, follow the Fisa laws, and offer a rebate to the US consumer.

But that isn't what happened, instead the consumer was violated in a variety of ways and more often than not gouged when the bill came on their cell bills.

Immunity??

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The telecoms, Viacom and AT&T, at least, violated the terms of their contract with consumers. The violated those terms repeatedly, intentionally, and with full knowledge that they were doing so. They also violated the law. I can't see a good reason why they should be immune from a huge class action lawsuit driving them into bankruptcy. If one of us had done something similar the FBI would be leading the effort to do the same to us.

Frankly, I doubt that Bush and his gang care the least if those telecoms go bankrupt. What they do care about is that in such a legal proceeding the telecom executives would testify in detail about how they were virtually forced to violate their contracts and the laws by the Bush administration flunkies.

None of this has any relevance to homeland security, terrorists, our safety, or anything else of consequence.

All of us railing at the wind here...
I'll be redundant and point to a reminder that Karl Rove learned his political tricks from Jeb Magruder during the re-elect Nixon campaign. Only Karl saw the future in his black ball; computer data mining in the information age and was miles ahead of old Jeb.
He was (and no doubt, still is) a crucial member of this "team" running the administration. They share the same mindset.
They aren't scrambling for protection. They are certain they have it in the bag.
They are probably correct.

The other thing I think we need to keep in mind, because the MSM never mentions it, is that Bushco began their warrantless wiretapping BEFORE 9/11--thus I believe they were not wiretapping to find "terrorists" (because they did not believe Bin Laden was a threat) they were likely wiretapping those they considered political enemies and other dissidents...once 9/11 happened they had perfect cover to tell the public they were wiretapping terrorists, and now they continue their fear-mongering in order to get us and Congress to go along with their illegal acts. If retroactive immunity is given to the telecoms, we will never find out who they illegally wire-tapped, and for how long, and why. And the "why" would be the most important to know.

Didn't McConnell get the letter to the pres from Rep. Silvestre Reyes?

"As you know, the 1978 FISA law, which has been modernized and updated numerous times since 9/11, was instrumental in disrupting the terrorist plot in Germany last summer. Those who say that FISA is outdated do not understand the strength of this important tool."

I guess Fox News wouldn't go so far as to check McConnell's facts. They don't hate America the way Reyes must.

Americans stood up to this illegal bill, and the House refused to approve it. Nothing happened. Indeed, why is the House afraid of doing the same standing up to this President?

Let's find out. What's the worst that can happen? Nothing. Then we have nothing to fear. Let's do it: Start an impeachment investigation. There is nothing to fear but nothing.

If the telcos need this to stay alive then the same applies to the Bush presidency.

Bush has managed to find ways to avoid legal challenges to his most grevious actions and he desperately wants to avoid having his administration and the telcos end up in court as possible co-defendants over the details of government sponsored collection of private communications of citizens.