DISQUS

eric · 1 year ago

This is only speculation, but perhaps due to the fact that the candidate knows more about the threats we face than you do, he is wisely changing his tune. (According to commentator and Bush biographer Bill Sammon, Bush has been giving briefings even in this early stage to both Hillary Clinton and Obama on national security, so that either could campaign responsibly and also be prepared more fully for the task, should either be elected.)

Of course, the problem with Obama is not that he's black. The problem is that he's green. I think his election during a period of economic crisis and war is unlikely. But at least the President is trying to bring him up to speed on the existential struggle of our generation, looking ahead to the possibility of his winning.

And perhaps, when all was said and done, the information Obama's been getting from the White House was more convincing than the theoretical arguments of those who oppose the FISA bill.

In the broader view, there may be reasons beyond political weakness or spinelessness to account for the capitulation of Democrats. True, they don't want to face blame if a terrorist event should occur that could have been prevented but for their foot-dragging. But also, it might just be they are interested in going balls out to make sure that event is detected and prevented in the first place. Perhaps they don't want to ever have to answer this question: How many lives is it worth to protect that particular principle of privacy? You could call that weakness. Or you could call it a regard for the lives of Americans.

Jim Harper · 1 year ago

Eric, though I believe you're being genuine, you've almost perfectly parodied the patsy to government officialdom playing the secrecy card. Your logic amounts to: "I don't know, therefore it is." And it forces you to cast aside all doubt or skepticism, relying on politicians and career bureaucrats to be the angels we know they are not.

Please take a moment to review the meaning of the word "existential," and then try to explain how the government officials you place your trust in continue to live, work, and educate their children in 'target city' Washington, D.C. With their superior information, don't you think that they would run for the hills in the face of this "existential" threat? In fact, they know something you don't - that we are safer than they say.

Maintaining FISA as is would not hamper the ability of the national security bureaucracy to access information it needs to secure the country. It would expose the bureaucracy to oversight, and it would allow the investigation of past lawbreaking. There is not a serious security rationale for amending FISA.

Senator Obama is "wisely" caving on FISA (in only a political sense) because not doing so would play into Senator McCain's political strength and Democrats' political weakness - war and national security.

Self Appointed Genius · 1 year ago

Obama and McCain are in very different positions than the rest of us, since it makes absolutely no difference what they really want to do. One of them will be in charge of the intelligence system, and they'll be able to modify the system as they choose.

So for Obama, it's easy to say screw it, I'll do what's politically viable this time so I can get in that office and clean it up the right way later. Likewise for the Democratic congress.

But we don't have that luxury. So, until they actually acquire these offices and make the appropriate reforms, all I can say is "Bad Democrats."

Jim Harper · 1 year ago

I'm less confident than you are, SAG, that Democrats would fix things up once in power, but I think you're right to look inside their political motivations rather than just assume noble, neutral public-spiritedness on the part of our elected officials.

I don't mean to dwell on your comment, Eric, but it occured to me after responding to you yesterday that President Bush's briefings of Democratic candidates could be tainted by political motivations. And even if they represent strictly careful truth as seen inside the White House, that doesn't mean that they should be credited. The national security bureaucracy will tend to produce exaggerated threat assessments both to justify its budgets and power, and potentially to push the president's hand and gain his assistance in its efforts to prevent exposure of past law-breaking.

eee_eff · 1 year ago

Jim:

I share your skepticism, to a point. That point starts when I reflect just how mis-managed the GWB administration has been. Obama could hardly be worse and will probably be a few thousand times better. In particular, I think we here in America underestimate the effect that Obama as president will have on the image of America abroad, especially if the Republicans are rejected by a large margin.

But the whole thing at present, especially with the fake 'FISA' debate smacks of a good ole by network, where those in "opposition" don't really oppose. They just seem to be going through the motions of 'opposing'

I want confrontation; I want competition; I want debate and a wide ranging debate at that. Why can't I have that? Why do I have to go to Gleenn Greenwald's blog to find it? Why can't I see it in the NYT?

That's my biggest problem with Obama--time and time again, his views are too establishment, when we need revolution, in thoughts at least.

xoites · 1 year ago

Repeal FISA is up and running. Anyone who wants to is welcome to sign up and become a Poster on it. The purpose of the blog is to organize a drive to repeal the FISA laws and all laws that pardon or give immunity from prosecution anyone who has violated the Constitution during the Bush Administration.

That is why we want everyone to be able to Post so they can start a conversation about an idea they have to make this happen.

Stop on by and check it out. By all means leave a comment and sign up to blog with us as we figure out what needs to be done to return our Fourth Amendment Rights and our rule of law.

If you have a blog already and you become a poster we will link to your site.

http://repealfisa.wordpress.com/

Julian Sanchez · 1 year ago

Uh, can we reconsider that name? Nobody actually wants to repeal FISA -- least of all civil libertarians, given that it was a huge improvement over the status quo in 1978. Actually, I take that back: There are people who want to repeal FISA, and they're the nuts who think the president's powers should be totally unrestricted the instant he whispers the words "national security". It's punchy, but I think you want to look for a different clarion call.

Constantone · 1 year ago

Why is it whenever Democrats diagree on this issue its framed as capitulation, in political terms? Perhaps he thinks that, except for the immunity it's a fairly good bill.

Joel Samberg · 1 year ago

"Presidential Shaving Cream" on YouTube.
It's the truth about all our candidates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKsK5NbgrKo
Enjoy. Share. Pray.