Good news: Congressional Democrats managed to do something right for a change, standing up to the shrub by overriding his veto of a Medicare reform bill. (Paul Krugman explains why this was an important victory.) Although it's certainly cause for some small celebration, this sudden display of courage speaks volumes about how far Democrats have sunk. We know they can and do stand up to the shrub when it comes to things like Social Security and Medicare -- so why won't they do it when it comes to the Constitution?
It's a serious question deserving serious and honest answers, especially from the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee, who broke his promise to fight telecomm immunity.
Word to the wise, Keith: don't get into a war of words with Glenn Greenwald; he'll kick your ass every time. Take the Salon.com blogger's response to the Countdown host's snipefest at the Mediocre Orange Hype.
[The civil immunity provision] doesn't seem to be through sloppiness or neglect -- but rather through deliberate intent -- that the bill only immunizes telecoms from civil, not criminal, liability (the key telecom section, 802(a), provides that "a civil action may not lie or be maintained against any person providing assistance to the intelligence community" where the bill's conditions are met). There are likely many reasons for confining immunity to civil liability -- including the heightened difficulty of proving criminal intent and, most importantly, the fact that Bush, on his way out, can pardon telecoms from criminal but not civil liability. So it's far from certain that Obama -- even if he did have a Secret Plan criminally to prosecute telecoms once in office -- would even be able to do so. If Bush pardons everyone connected to his illegal spying program, as many have speculated he might, then Obama's Secret Plan -- even if it existed -- would be instantaneously extinguished. That's why these telecom lawsuits are the only real avenue left to ensure accountability and obtain a legal ruling on what was done.
But beyond all that, to give Obama a pass on his support for such a heinous bill -- one which Dean himself describes as a grave assault on the Constitution -- based on this imagined secret plan for the Good that Obama is harboring is to illustrate exactly the sort of blind faith in political leaders that is so dangerous.
In short, because the shrub can and most certainly will issue pardons to all those who helped him break the law -- thus preventing any and all legal hope of prosecuting the telecommunications companies that helped the shrub spy on Americans illegally -- Obama's support for immunity from civil suits is what almost every reasonable person is saying it is: a craven and cynical capitulation to the shrub for the sake of political convenience.
That Olbermann continues to make excuses for Obama on this matter, even going so far as to try to spin his way out of it -- the very thing he regularly chastises the likes of Bill O'Lielly for -- is particularly saddening. He has sold his soul to the Obama cult at Daily Kos, and with it his journalistic principles and ethics.
We must not let this stand. Glenn Greenwald is correct: Keith Olbermann is making excuses for Obama over something he would blast any other coward for. The host of Countdown must be reminded that he is above all else a journalist, and because he has chosen to be the voice of the left he has an obligation to represent us even if it means criticizing Barack Obama. Send him an e-mail and voice your outrage.
countdown@msnbc.com
Be polite, but make it clear to Olbermann that he screwed up and that it's not too late for him to redeem himself.
The Politico gives us the transcript of the dictator's latest interview (if, by "interview", you mean yet another tedious exercise in reportorial fellatio).
The shrub lies about what his regime has done about the environment, acknowledges Global Warming, says others have to do the work on fixing it before the U.S. can even get involved, and lies again about why he's done nothing.
Q: I wonder if in your eight years in office what the changes have been, in your view, of climate change?
THE SHRUB: I think it's been more clearly defined as a problem. But what hasn't changed is the realistic notion that new technologies are going to be the solution, and the fundamental question is how do you grow the economy at the same time, and at the same time encourage new technologies. And my administration has done more for the new technologies necessary to change our lifestyles without sacrificing wealth than any other administration.
Q: For the record, is global warming real?
THE SHRUB: Yes, it is real, sure is. But the solutions -- having said that, the solutions have got to be measured and realistic -- you can't have a solution to global warming unless China and India are part of any international pact. It's one of the reasons I didn't accept what's called the Kyoto Protocol, and therefore was labeled as anti-environment. I'm a realistic guy. If the major emitters of greenhouse gases are not a part of a solution, then those who are part of a solution are acting in a way that's simply not going to -- it will affect their own economies, but it won't affect the overall global warming issue.
So, yes, I put forth a very realistic, straightforward program that makes sense.
Q: Acknowledging those constraints, you're an oil man -- some people say that climate change, global warming could have been your Nixon-to-China. Do you wish you'd done more?
THE SHRUB: I did what I think is necessary to actually work, Michael. I mean, I could have signed a -- I could have supported a lousy treaty and everybody would have went, "Oh, man, what a wonderful sounding fellow he is." But it just wouldn't have worked. I don't think you want your president trying to be the cool guy and not end up with policies that actually make a difference.
So the policies I've outlined are policies that will actually make a difference: nuclear power for generating electricity; battery driven cars; ethanol. There's a variety of initiatives -- clean coal technology -- all of which will help us sustain our economic vitality and at the same time be better stewards of the environment.
I interrupt this report for a brief rant: I really wish Reuters and other news agencies would cease using the word 'defy' and its derivatives when reporting about stories such as this. Congress is the legislative body, and the branches of government are supposed to be co-equal. Congress cannot, according to the Constitution, defy the executive branch because it is not subservient to it.
I now return to the story at hand.
But the 213-197 vote was far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised veto by Bush. He has demanded that any telecommunication company that participated in his warrantless domestic spying program secretly begun after the September 11 attacks receive retroactive immunity.
As MSNBC reports, 'Because of the promised veto, "this vote has no impact at all," said Republican Whip Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri.'
Republicans falsely accused Democrats of endangering national security by refusing to grant immunity. But their arguments are based on deception; since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- passed in 1978 and updated in 1994 -- set up a secret court that doles out ninety-nine percent of all warrants applied for, there is no legal block to using the power of the federal government to spy on alleged terrorist communications. It is also unlikely that terrorists would be foolish enough to use telephone and Internet services to pass on information.
Bush's illegal spying on American citizens is motivated, like Richard Nixon's administration, to keep tabs on political enemies and to monitor dissent. If telecommunications companies face prosecution for their role in helping him break the law, they may be more likely to cooperate with investigators to go after members of the White House who ordered the illegal wiretaps. Bush wants to provide immunity in order to take away any incentive for that cooperation, because testimony and evidence is likely to directly implicate him in lawbreaking.
