May it be more than hollow Kabuki, to followed by craven surrender. Go Nancy! Rah!
Posted by DeminNewJ at February 15, 2008 07:00 AMPelosi needs to get her act together. Go Cindy.
Posted by JohnT at February 15, 2008 07:07 AM"We understand the value of collecting terrorism information..."
Oh sure, we are virtuous, they are terrorists. It's in all the news.
A prediction:
Princess Sparkle Pelosi will cave, claiming there just weren't enough votes. Not that I'm a telepath, I only have her past record to go on. Then Harry "blow em for a buck" Reid can swoon like a Southern Belle with gas at a cotillion, "We jus din't hay-ave the votes. Ah'm swoonin!" His lobbyest son-in-law and lobbyest sons will make sure of it...and make an assload of money to boot.
Go Cindy.
You bet! And the bonus would be that you don't have a rep with a face immobilized by Botox.
Posted by phidipides at February 15, 2008 07:46 AMLook, can ANYONE get what the chief reason for this "telecom immunity" is? It's not to "protect" Telecoms from paying some money damages to citizens.
The chief reason for "telecom" immunity is to ensure that the TRUTH about Bushco's patently illegal acts is NEVER revealed and ruled on by the federal judiciary!! This is a presidential crimes cover-up bill! That's why the WH and the Repubs are so desperate to get it enacted.
Think about it. How could a provision granting retroactive immunity for past acts be ESSENTIAL to correcting supposed technical "flaws" in how FISA operates now? That a bill without such a provision would be vetoed as a fear-mongerong threat? It's crazy, unless you're covering Bush's ass.
Bush is protecting himself from being ruled a felon who suborned clearly and unquestionably illegal action by the telecoms.
And the Dems don't frame it this way. Why? Who in the country would support covering-up allegedly illegal executive actions (by the hated Cheney!) so the courts can't rule on what was done?
Posted by euzoius at February 15, 2008 07:48 AMCongressman Reyes' letter to Bush is on Rawstory. Everyone should read it. He should be Speaker since he is not afraid of Bush like Pelosi.
Posted by JohnT at February 15, 2008 08:32 AMEuzoius, great point that I should have made. Thanks.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at February 15, 2008 08:50 AMyes, euzoius, it would be great if the Dems would actually just put it in plain english...this FISA thing has nothing to do with eliminating suveillance on criminals...that law and process has been in effect for a long time. It is 100% about protecting Bush from criminality...just like the Torturegate thing is and just like USAGgate is/was. All this bluster is based on one thing and one thing only, protecting the president of the United States from being tried and convicted of a boatload of felonies. Can't they just say that? Can Hillary? Can Obama? Be the first one to just say it and you win the presidency.
Posted by T2 at February 15, 2008 09:32 AMT2 it's a tailor made issue for unifying Dems and independents, both of whom have sensibly and rationally come to despise our lawbreaking president and his felon VP.
Everyone knows I'm partial to Obama---he should look beyond the "no substance!" smears of Hillary and declare that Telecom immunity is a cover up for Bush's illegal acts. I don't understand why neither of them take up this issue and trumpet it as a national one----they could declare they are in favor of the "technical" fixes to FISA and support some amendments, but NOT immunizing the president's illegal actions from the scrutiny of our federal courts.
I don't get it.
Posted by euzoius at February 15, 2008 10:11 AMJeff:
Don't open the champaign bottle yet. Pelosi will buckle under the attack from the Republican spin machine and fellow democrats telling her that we look weak against national security if we let this provision expire. This has been the pattern all along. Why would it be different this time.
I hope Cindy Sheehan really runs against Pelosi.
Posted by suresh at February 15, 2008 10:18 AMsorry, had to fix your sentence:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to risk allowing the Protect America Act, which would permanently expand the government's surveilance powers while shielding telecoms that have ILLEGALLY helped the government's ILLEGAL eavesdropping efforts from lawsuits, to expire tomorrow rather than passing a bill to meet the deadline.
Posted by Gay Veteran at February 15, 2008 10:22 AMI am glad she is showing up for the 9th inning. Better late than never. Now the question is can she hit one out of the park?(i.e., shut down the fascists). We'll see. Pardon my cynicism. I have been waiting since 2001 for someone to put even a bump in their road.
Posted by truthseeker at February 15, 2008 10:57 AMShe'll cave, always does. She and Reid are big on bluster, but when push comes to shove they are spineless. And this, against a president with 30% approval rating!
Posted by balthus at February 15, 2008 11:27 AMHillary and Barack might be worried that all of their communications are in big fat files for blackmailing purposes.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 15, 2008 02:05 PM