I think you could add the Patriot Act, the gang of 14 sellout on the SC, war funding (and more funding and more funding and funding without end.....).

The list could go on indefinitely. The FISA issue became a line in the sand issue I think because of the utter despair at the sellouts on everything else.

And it's not like the party has been willing to persevere on domestic issues like SCHIP with the same tenacity that the blue dogs have been willing to persevere on FISA. They didn't mind letting SCHIP die.

To me it's just an indication that nothing is really going to change. We'll get thrown a bone now and then but blue dogs + Republicans = Republicans. Win or lose we lose. Until we're willing to face down our own party nothing is going to happen. Oh, we might pass a welfare for health insurance companies bill or rename the Iraq War, the Glorious and Benevolent Bipartisan Imperial Occupation of Iraq but the more things pretend to change, the more they stay the same.

Ben,

It's a simple issue of crying over spilled milk.

Bush is old news already. We can't un-war the war.

(By the way, GWOT is a very real thing and there are very dedicated people working hard on it -- despite Washington's efforts to get in there way. I personally know one civil servant, probably the smartest person I have met in the last 10 years get fed up and leave the government -- and we are all poorer for it.)

Impeachment also is a sort of crazy action. Unfortunately, in the last 10 years it's been politicized -- to impeach Clinton was the height of disrespect for the Constitution. Particularly since impeachment wasn't even brought up during Iran-Contra.

In my view, GWB didn't commit an impeachable offense any more than LBJ did with Tolkin. These actions pale in comparison to Nixon using the apparatus of government to control the citizenry (which is what Watergate was really all about) or Reagan running full-blown shadow operations and subverting congressional authority.

It would have been much better (and more realistic) to not call for impeachment of Bush but rather scare the crap out of Congress -- because than Bush would have had to listen.

But it's all in the past, and we are stuck with what he did.

Obama and FISA, however, is forward looking. The milk is still in the bottle, but the bottle is teetering.

The fact is that we don't need FISA -- time and again the government has wanted to broaden it's powers, but the reality is that it doesn't efficiently use the powers it already has. A simple example: the FBI and CIA still have turf wars over terrorism -- 9/11, that's NINE ELEVEN -- didn't change a thing!!!!

It's possible to pressure Obama and still beat McCain. Obama has preached change -- and I voted for him and have given him substantial money -- for that change. If we want the country to move more to the center -- and have the campaign less about fear -- then we have to be proactive.

Obama was able to beat Hillary and her kitchen sink team by being honest and righteous. He can do the same with critical issues like this.

It's what leadership is all about.

Obama's position may have had a lot to do with the fact that the new bill has an exclusivity provision giving powers to the FISA court, a new inspector general and other oversight additions.

The way this administration used it, they never informed the FISA court with what they were doing. This bill takes that ability away. FISA will never be dismantled. It was there before GWB and it will be there after him.

A very pragmatic politician Obama's turning out to be. I'm happy he shows this side. I'm sure that could be argued as that since I want to see "pragmatic" I see pragmatic. Someone else wanting to see "betrayal" will see precisely that. But that gets no where, for me. That's equivalent to saying - yeah, people are people. So?

Unlike CT, I hope that certain people in this administration are prosecuted. As for the immunity, so many people were complicit. Where to begin in taking names and kicking ass?

I still refuse to decide whether Obama's position is worth getting my boxers in a bunch over this until a bill has actually been passed and signed into law. Maybe all is exactly as it seems, maybe it isn't. I don't know.

I do know that regardless of what's going on, no amount of netrooty outrage is going to make him do a public 180 on it.

And that's about the only thing I feel like I really do know for sure about this mess. Seems like the harder I try to get to the facts on this thing, the more I discover that what I thought I already knew for a "fact" was really just someone's speculation or inference. It's very, very frustrating. Speculation and inference are usually all we peons have to go by in intelligence matters, but however reasonable, I have yet to see any on this topic that are conclusive.

Anyone who argues that there are no "high crimes and misdemeanors" to warrant impeachment are deluded. Besides the countless crimes that have been exposed, an overall program to politicize the entire federal government, including DoD, DoJ, and our entire reordered security apparatus indicates their motives.

I see this as confusing the two issues because of the processes involved. Pelosi has kept impeachment, until recently, from even coming to the floor. She made a deal to block impeachment even before they took over Congress, which raises serious questions. She’s blocked Conyers’, Kucinich’s and all efforts while Feingold’s bill of censure for publicly acknowledged illegal acts by the president (’06?) was run away from by Dems like the plague. Dem leaders actively argued against and stalled impeachment and, so, most accept they have run out the clock to all effect.

There will be no trials or investigations other than minor lower level scapegoats (roundup the usual suspects) when this admin leaves office. The telecom suits were one of the last avenues to get some of these crimes out on record. It would have forced action. The FISA amendment was the opposite of impeachment. Those who refused to grant Bush more questionable tactics to abuse the rights of American citizens and abrogate treaties at will wanted to fix the minor problem with FISA or even get a short extension of the PAA and decide next year.

They did not want any FISA bills to come forward. Of course, the Dems control what gets out of committee, what goes to the floor for a vote (recall that Reid gave precedence to the Rockefeller/Cheney bill), amendments, etc. In short, they could have sat on their hands here. This is further confirmation that nothing will be done on impeachment, enforcement of laws, restoring checks and balances or rolling back dictatorial powers. At least, one of the fastest (only?) growing sectors of our economy is the security state (that’s “police state” for you old timers). I understand that at the height of Castro's Cuba 50% of the population were paid as spies on the other half. That's job security.

"...So, although I think he made the wrong call here, it's not the same crushing blow to my opinion of him that it seems to be for some people who also think he made the wrong call here.... find a middle ground..."

This has been a bad week for the idealism we crave in our candidate; and most of us blinked, more than once, as we confronted mutiple demonstrations of realism in Obama.

There's an important lesson in this week for us, and it is a good one: as Obama acknowledges that Hillary's toughness made him a more resilient candidate, so Obama's serial displays of pragmatism should make us more sensible and resilient supporters of his candidacy.

So, let's ask ourselves some tough questions:
1) Is it reasonable to expect him to deliver, 100% of the time, what we perceive to be the right answer? No. We may want him to be on the right side of every issue, in a moral as well as political sense, but that, inevitably, would be a one-way ticket to election self-sabotage for him -- which would result in the election of McCain, which would be a self-sabotaging result for all of us.
2) Do we think he owes us an explanation, in advance, of the positions he may have to take under the duress of the GE? No; he can hardly expose his campaign strategy in a public forum, by sending out an email to all his supporters in which he explains why he is making these decisions.

So what is he to do, to get elected but also keep our faith in him?

I think the answer is that he is demonstrating his faith in us. He is assuming we are intelligent enough, and hoping that we are committed enough, to stay the course with him.

In essence, he is treating us as if we are rational adults, able to accept compromise as he himself is doing.

Let's remind ourselves why we supported him to begin with:
1) Do we believe in his intelligence? Yes, we do.
2) Do we believe that he considers issues thoughtfully before he makes a decision? Yes, we do.
3) Do we believe that he mapped out this campaign well in advance, anticipating most, if not all, of the stumbling blocks? Yes, of course.

So why not take a deep breath, and then hit that Send button again -- the one for a donation -- so that we CAN have most, if not all, that we want in a president? Can, as in YES, WE CAN.

I keep wondering why people imagine that if they are allowed to sue telecoms anything would come out of it that would help the situation vis-a-vis our rights. I can almost guarantee you that if the immunity is pulled and people do sue the telecoms, the telecoms will respond by settling out of court.

This isn't the way to protect our rights from the government.

>>>Remember that immunity is about forgiving past criminal actions and not about preventing future ones,

I think settlement out of court is the most optimistic outcome, Tena.

As you note, the telecoms, in complying with apparently lawful government orders, did not engage in any criminal actions. Even if a warrent didn't accompany the order, under the law the gov't could get a judicial warrant **after** directing the turn-over of information. The only wrongful act that occured here took place *after* the telecoms did their bit ... when the gov't didn't bother to comply with the law by applying for after-the-fact warrant.

And as to the theory that suing the telecoms would automatically lead to all sorts of juicy discovery about what was turned over, a settlement, as Tena mentions, would cut off discovery rights ...... and even if they didn't want to settle, there is something called a "motion to dismiss" that can be made right up front in any litigation -- *before* discovery -- if the person/entity sued has a valid and comprehensive defense: such as relying on apparent lawful authority.

If anyone broke the law or violated constitutional rights, it was the government, not the telecoms. There IS a private right of action against the government already in existence: a 'civil rights' suit under 42 USC 1983. No only would such a lawsuit be directed against the real wrongdoer, but it would not be so easily dismissed (very strong case of violation of 4th Amendment rights by issuing the order) and it would bring discovery rights focused on what the government did to get the information AND what it did with the information.

So it wasn't much of a compromise at all to give up the fight for telecom immunity, because telecom LIABILITY is a pie-in-the-sky distant dream that wouldn't amount to anything in the end. If Obama is to be faulted, in fact, it's for buying into the fact that the issue mattered in the first place. I'm coming more and more to believe, as Tena suggested elsewhere, that it was little more than a red herring ...... perhaps intentionally waved around to keep people from looking at ways to get at the REAL culprits: Bush, Cheyney & Co.