To me the issue of telecom immunity matters only in that civil lawsuits against the telecoms were our best chance of revealing the scope and nature of the eavesdropping. Bush has argued executive privilege and state secrets to every congressional attempt to uncover the basic facts of what was done. They argued state secrets in the civil case too, but at least you could have multiple suits in multiple courts and have a better chance of a sympathetic judge.

Maybe it becomes less relevent as Bush leaves office, but I don't think we should just place blind trust in Obama (or, much less, McCain) to fix all the constitutional overreaches of the Bush administration outside of the public eye.

On the other hand, I personally don't think a private company should be put in the position where it has to defy the federal government to uphold the constitution, and if it doesn't, it is liable. When if they had just defied the government, they could probably have faced charges of obstruction. We assume the major telecoms had boatloads of lawyers to evaluate the legal underpinnings of the requests, but the Patriot Act also includes the ability to impose gag orders which prevent the recipient of a national security letter from even consulting with an outside lawyer. I am sure that under the patriot act, many more companies have violated the 4th amendment, but it is unfair to expect a video rental store or a library or a landlord to have (in-house) the constitional law background to take on the Department of Justice.

Posted at June 26, 2008 1:52 PM in response to Rendell On Bill Clinton's Alleged Hard Feelings Towards Obama: "Get Over It," "Shake It Off"

McCain is not responsible!? Hah!

McCain did not just "go along" with the Bush administration. He was one of chief cheerleaders and he was also one of the fabricators. He made up intelligence and asserted incorrect (and stupid) assumptions as fact.

Here are some McCain quotes in the run-up to, and early stages of, the war:

Feb 13, 2003: "Proponents of containment claim that Iraq is in a "box." But it is a box with no lid, no bottom, and whose sides are falling out. Within this box are definitive footprints of germ, chemical and nuclear programs."

November 2001: " Saddam Hussein ( is ) developing weapons of mass destruction as quickly as he can."

Jan 28, 2003: "I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks."

On Larry King September 2002: " I believe success will be very easy."

To Wolf Blitzer 2002: "We're not going to get into house-to-house fighting." ... " We're not going to have a bloodletting."

March 2003 : " There's no doubt in my mind ...we will be welcomed as liberators."

To MSNBC 2003: "There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias, so I think they can probably get along."

"Meet the Press" interview, March 3, 2003: "We're going to prevail and we will win and it'll be one of the best things that's happened to America and the world in a long time 'cause it'll reverberate throughout the Middle East."

ABC, 4/9/03: “It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.”

And even his claim that he would have done it differently, sending in more soldiers at the start is a lie:

September 15, 2002. "But the fact is, I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But any military man worth his salt is going to have to prepare for any contingency, but I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991."

And this gem from dec 5, 2001:

Dear Mr. President:

The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.

This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.

The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.

Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power.

McCain is not responsible. That's a good one!

Posted at June 18, 2008 8:04 PM in response to Obama: You Wanna Talk About 9/11? Well, Let's Talk About 9/11!

Oh, and congratulations. I look forward to hearing the podcast, or reading the transcript, or something.

Posted at June 18, 2008 2:27 PM in response to Articleman's Experience as a Progressive Talk Radio Guest, or, Ride the Unity Pony, Part Two

So are you saying that unity is like cocaine and intra-party squabbles are more like heroin?

"If you wanna ride, don't ride the white horse/
Don't ride the white horse, ride the white pony."

Posted at June 18, 2008 2:25 PM in response to Articleman's Experience as a Progressive Talk Radio Guest, or, Ride the Unity Pony, Part Two

Very cool. I'm not generally awake nor coherent at that hour, are they going to include it in their podcasts?

Posted at June 17, 2008 4:40 PM in response to Articleman on KRXA AM tomorrow 8:06 a.m. PDT/11:06 EDT, Doing Interview About Recent TPM Posts, Campaign

Emotionally manipulative, or not, it appears to be effective:

They note in a press release that "[p]reliminary testing, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research shows 'Not Alex' ranking among the most persuasive ads the pollsters have reviewed in the last four years."

Posted at June 17, 2008 4:36 PM in response to Moveon/AFSCME anti-McCain "Daisy" style ad

Oops. That last line should be part of the blockquote:

Because if you were, you can’t have him.

Posted at June 17, 2008 4:13 PM in response to Moveon/AFSCME anti-McCain "Daisy" style ad

Here is the full transcript:

Hi, John McCain, this is Alex, and he's my first. So far, his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. So, John McCain, when you said you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex?

Because if you were, you can’t have him.

Posted at June 17, 2008 4:12 PM in response to Moveon/AFSCME anti-McCain "Daisy" style ad

I haven't read the whole thing, but it seems that they have overturned the MCA completely. In fact they say, "Because the DTA’s procedures for reviewing detainees’ status
are not an adequate and effective substitute for the habeas writ, MCA §7 operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ."

So does that mean that the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be halted immediately? I get the impression that the military prosecutors and judges would be happy to be out of it. Or will the Bush administration find a way to interpret this ruling (as they did the last one) as a mere suggestion that they go back to congress and try to tweak their parallel judicial system? It does seem that the Bush admin has no ability anymore to prevent the habeas petitions from going forward in civilian court.

Thank God Kennedy decided to side with the rational members of the court. Given his history, he could have easily gone the other way.

Posted at June 12, 2008 4:11 PM in response to Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gitmo Detainees

I think to some extent, Lieberman and Hagel are mirror images--both have broken from and angered their party by defecting from the official party line on the war. Lieberman may not represent the people of Connecticut well, but I think it is an understatement to say Hagel does not represent the thoughts of most Nebraskans on the war--or at least he didn't when he first started speaking out.

But there is a big difference in their credibility and integrity as evidenced by their style of defection. Jumpin Joe just jumped to the other side of the aisle and has adopted the tactics and style of his new bff's: "the Democrat party," "Hamas has endorsed Obama." No matter how sincere his committment to his beliefs, he makes the same dishonest arguments that they make and they welcome him with open arms. In the end, Lieberman sacrificed nothing for his neocon beliefs except his integrity and his party.

Hagel, on the other hand, believed so much that this war was wrong that he sacrificed his own political career, but not his party. He knew he would not be re-elected in Nebraska, but he didn't try to suck up to the Democrats. In fact, he was sometimes the lone voice of reason, while the Dems hemmed and hawed on the war. He clearly has contempt for Bush but he still believes in Republican principles. And his voice, on this issue at least, has always been honest and clear and devoid of spin.

Hagel may find a place in Obama's cabinet (I hope he does, as SecDef) but it won't be because he insinuated himself into it. It will be because he has shown himself to have true integrity. If Lieberman finds a spot in the GOP, it will be because he has demonstrated his lack of integrity.

Posted at June 9, 2008 3:17 PM in response to Obama Privately Rebuked Lieberman For Half-Heartedly Denying False Muslim Rumors