FISA Fight: Do Dems want to be like Joe?

Democrats in Congress have a choice to make. Do they want to be like Joe Lieberman?

A Connecticut reader sends us this missive on FISA from his junior Senator:

March 10, 2008

Dear Mr. [constituent]:

Thank you for contacting me to express your views regarding extending the Protect America Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-55), which was signed into law by the President on August 5, 2007.  I welcome the opportunity to share my thoughts with you on this serious issue.

It has been neither an accident nor luck that America has not been attacked since that horrific day on September 11, 2001.  As a result of the hard work of many in the intelligence community, those who would kill many more Americans have been thwarted in their attempts to attack us again.  Nevertheless, as the recent National Intelligence Estimate stated, the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland remains persistent and continues to evolve, especially as the terrorists become more proficient in their use of modern technology....

On February 12, 2008, I voted for, and the Senate passed with a strong bipartisan vote of 68-29, the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248) that was introduced by Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV)....

S. 2248 also included a provision that would grant legal protections to the telecommunications companies that assisted with foreign intelligence collection between September 11, 2001 and January 17, 2007. I supported that provision because those companies were asked to assist the intelligence community in defending the country, and they did so in good faith.  Allowing those companies to be held liable for that assistance would be unfair and would serve as a grave disincentive for the private sector to partner with the government on issues of national security in the future.  It is important to remember that the federal government itself does not have the capacity of its own telecommunications company and must rely on private providers in this instance.  As the nature of the terrorist threat continues to evolve, we will need the assistance of everyone - the private sector and the general public - to keep us safe.

Unfortunately, the House did not pass a similar version of S. 2248; and the Protect America Act has expired.  The intelligence community now must operate under the 1978 FISA law, which means it is hampered in its ability to collect the information it needs to do its job effectively.  I strongly urge the House to follow the Senate's lead and pass a law similar to S. 2248.  An updated FISA law that includes a provision granting the telecommunications companies with legal liability protection is critical to our safety and security.

Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as the Senate continues to work with the U.S. House of Representatives to reconcile the differences between the two versions of the bill.  I believe our national security is paramount, and please be assured of my commitment to maintaining the balance between the crucial need for tools to fight the war on terror and the equally important need to protect our civil liberties.

Thank you again for sharing your views and concerns with me.  I hope you will continue to visit my web site at http://lieberman.senate.gov for updated news about my work on behalf of Connecticut and the nation.  Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.

Sincerely,
 
Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR

That's an interesting interpretation of events on Joe's part. There's also this one--it was actually the House Republicans who prevented an extension of the Protect America Act. It's their fault that bill expired. There's also the part where the intelligence community can continue any of it's current surveillance projects started under PAA for a year. And the fact that none of the telecommunications companies are holding the intelligence agencies hostage over immunity--it is not critical to our safety and security.

What it is critical to Joe and the Republicans, it seems, is the cover up of the illegal warrantless wiretapping program. Not surprisingly, Joe Lieberman joins the Republicans in protecting George Bush and AT&T over protecting Amercans. Who among the Dems wants to join him?

•  It's Sure Becoming Clear HRC Does....

  asdf

  by tkmattson on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:31:33 AM PDT

  •  Let him go!

    Holly Joe is a republican.  Why can’t we all just accept that fact? (I’m talking to you elected officials)  He decided to leave the party, he doesn’t speak for Democrats, and Democrats should not feel any need to follow his lead on anything.  He has not done anything in the last 2 years to help the party.

    by GreatDane on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:36:28 AM PDT

    •  Might I Venture.....

      .....that during this campaign, HRC has done more damage to the party than Joe could have possibly daydreamed of.

      by tkmattson on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:39:53 AM PDT

    •  We will

      If we can get Clinton to acknowledge reality, then Obama can do his magic and we'll sweep enough seats to get rid of Lieberman's hold on us once and for all. IMO if there's no more fat committee assignments for Joe, he'll retire.

      Clinton is protecting Lieberman, and a bunch of other jackasses.

      by racerx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:43:20 AM PDT

      •  Pary Time

        I can’t wait to watch Joe on CSPAN when that happens.  He will surely proclaim that democracy in America is dead.  What a sanctimonious twit.

        by GreatDane on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:49:16 AM PDT

    •  Congressmen who trade citizen's freedom....

      I received the same email.  I was so mad while reading it because:

      1. It ignored the points I made in my earlier letter, and

      2. It came after the Senate vote, way after the Senate vote, and

      3. the phrase "the intelligence community now must operate under the 1978 FISA law, which means it is hampered in its ability to collect the information it needs to do its job effectively" is just insulting to anyone familiar with the FISA issue.

      I'm so disappointed in Senator Lieberman.  To some extent, I can understand how power corrupts people.  I just don't get why the people closest to him keep supporting such lunacy.  It's obvious that he turns to the Republican party for feelings of affirmation, but dear Lord, if I acted in such a horrible manner I would hope that my family would call me out on it.  I think Joe needs to go on Oprah, or Dr. Phil, or Dr. Drew's addiction show.  

      From Wikipedia, this is an interesting read:

      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

      This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served....

      Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
      
      "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

      "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

      "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

      "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

      "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."

      "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

      "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

      "Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither."

      I'll add my own: "Congressmen who trade citizen's freedom for false security deserve to be impeached, tried for treason, or kicked out of office at the earliest possible re-election."

      by jrchicago on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:50:12 AM PDT

      •  etiquette question

        I received an email from my senator on the FISA issue, and I've considered writing a diary on it.  My question is, is it kosher to cut and paste the senator's entire letter?

        No doubt I'm not the only one who received a copy, but I'm a little reticent to just assume that that means I can make it public.

        What is the proper course of action?  Not that I'm worried about being sued but who owns the copyright to the letter, the congressman, me (the recipient), or is it public domain because it was produced by a government employee?

        by AndersOSU on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:29:17 PM PDT

        •  It's a government communication to a constituent.

          You can publish the whole thing.

          by maxschell on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:54:27 PM PDT

  •  Relevance?

    She's voted against telco amnesty just as Obama has. Try to keep the subject at hand.

    by mcjoan on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:38:25 AM PDT

    •  Must hurry to be forst

      no time to engage brain.

      by groggy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:41:45 AM PDT

      •  Apparently no time to proof read either

        by groggy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:42:36 AM PDT

        •  Yes, hrury pu!

          by psnyder on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:19:22 PM PDT

    •  The Subject At Hand Is....

      ...."Do Dems want to be like Joe?".  The answer I gave is about as on subject as it gets.  Sorry to disagree with you mcjoan.  I have always like you, and always will.

      by tkmattson on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:41:51 AM PDT

      •  On FISA. (n/t)

        by mcjoan on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:45:30 AM PDT

        •  Sorry But At This Point In Time.....

          .....given the circumstances at hand, to pose an open ended question like that, even despite your content of your diary, it is an inescapable thuth that bleeds into every discussion.  I personally will refrain from posting any more on the topic of HRC in this diary, given your intentions, however understand that even after reading your diary, it has become impossible to say the words Lieberman without expecting HRC to brought into the discussion.  Rec'd.

          by tkmattson on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:53:43 AM PDT

•  Lieberman/Ferraro '08!

  by MLDB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:32:09 AM PDT

  •  Joementum! That's what this campaign is missing!

    by mkfarkus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:50:45 AM PDT

•  Has Holy Joe always been a douche?

  Or is this something new since 2000?

  Sean

  by whytwolf on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:32:18 AM PDT

  •  Only in certain areas

    On issues like the environment / global warming he is OK, but anything to do with foreign policy and/or the middle east he is a total douchebag.

    by racerx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:37:20 AM PDT

    •  Read a story somewhere this morning

      that McCain is likely to name Lieberman as his Secretary of State (should he win).
      Sounds like another huge disaster in the making, no?

      by sherlyle on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:47:40 AM PDT

      •  Which part?

        McCain winning or Lieberman as SoS? :)

        by eco d on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:48:38 AM PDT

        •  Either.

          But the two together?

          I shudder to think.

          by redsquareblack on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:49:44 AM PDT

          •  A preventable disaster, though...

            It is very nice of McCain to be doing so much to strengthen our resolve and determination to defeat him.

            OT:  Politics aside, I find the above picture kinda sweet.  I don't much like either Bush or Lieberman, but I think it is kinda sweet that they found each other.

            by swampus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:01:36 AM PDT

            •  Win!

              by redsquareblack on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:05:39 AM PDT

            •  regarding your OT comment...

              personally, I almost vomited when I saw that picture!

              Can't the party kick him out?

              by AngryFinn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:23:11 PM PDT

              •  Yeah, me too...

                That was supposed to be snark.  I guess I'm just not good at it.

                by swampus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:43:50 PM PDT

        •  Well, you have a point there. Either way. n/t

          by sherlyle on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM PDT

      •  A great way to get him out of the Senate!

        by mkfarkus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:51:33 AM PDT

      •  Fantastic

        All we need to do to pull some rug out from under McCrazy is to let his supporters know he'll appoint pro-choice people into his cabinet.

        McCain needs the anti-choice wingnuts fired up or he's toast. Undercut him on that one issue and he'll never have a chance.

        by racerx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:35:07 PM PDT

  •  douche is the proper word

    by davefromqueens on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:38:04 AM PDT

    •  But not a nice, fresh-smelling douche

      a really harsh nasty-smelling douche

      by mkfarkus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:52:11 AM PDT

      •  I agree for a different reason...

        These feminine "hygiene" products are sold by folks who have somehow been able to convince women that their private parts will be offensive to anyone standing 50 meters upwind.  

        The reality is that at best, they are useless.

        At worst, they mess with the natural balance of things.

        This is Joe Lieberman exactly.

        You are correct.  Joe Lieberman is a douche.

        by swampus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:24:53 AM PDT

  •  Pretty much

    just nobody paid any attention to him pre-2000. Now he's basically irrelevant, unless we can use him to bash Blue Dogs.

    by mcjoan on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:39:34 AM PDT

  •  He's grown worse in stages

    He was a finger-wagging moralist as far back as 1998, when he delivered that grandstanding lecture to Bill Clinton from the Senate floor. Then there was his treacherous appearance on "Meet the Press" during the 2000 Florida recount in which he came out for counting the military ballots whether or not they were cast in compliance with state law. He was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Iraq war; and before, during, and after the war, again wagged his finger at Democrats who opposed the colossal blunder that he enabled. After voters soundly rejected him and his pro-war platform in the 2004 primaries and caucuses, he grew a chip on his shoulder; he began to impugn the patriotism of war opponents in such forums as Fox News and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Following the 2006 Connecticut Senate primary, the chip on Lieberman's shoulder grew to the size of a California redwood: now he's on a mission to punish every Democrat who failed to recognize how persipacious he was about the grave threat of Islamofascism(tm).

    Anyone who was paying attention knew long ago that Joe Lieberman was a cancer on the party. Evidently many Senate Democrats weren't paying attention--or chose not to.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:40:44 AM PDT

  •  YES HE HAS

    by hopalong on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:54:23 AM PDT

•  Charles Foster Lieberman

  A once promising man reduced to shouting at the walls, holed up from reality, pining for his "Rosebud."

  In Lieberman's case, "Rosebud" is short for "relevancy."

  by WinSmith on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:32:23 AM PDT

•  What strikes me about this picture is

  Bush has his eyes closed. He's in heaven.  Now I'll go back and read the diary.

  by Blogvirgin on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:33:22 AM PDT

  •  LMAO

    

    by mkfarkus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:53:52 AM PDT

•  Same ol', same ol'. The Republican memo

  with very few substitutions and certainly all of the lies.

  Time to kick him out of the cloakroom.

  by TerribleTom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:33:33 AM PDT

•  Brain Bleach!!!

  I'm reading as I eat my lunch. You oughta be ashamed!

  by JeffW on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:33:41 AM PDT

  •  Hey, it's just a tension reliever

    

    by mkfarkus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:54:32 AM PDT

•  Please

  Somebody draw up a target list of the DINOs we need to primary. Form a serious organization intent on recruiting their replacements. Let us use the power of the net to put those fuckers on notice that they are not safe unless they do the will of the people.

  by racerx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:33:48 AM PDT

  •  That's a good idea.

    Start actively turning the Democratic party inside-out.

    by redsquareblack on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:50:51 AM PDT

  •  How about the 16 new Democrats we need to save?

    There are 16 house Democratic freshmen under attack for standing up for our Constitution.  They could use some love and support to show them that we support them for what they are ACTUALLY DOING!

    What are you actually doing?

    Here are two things you can do right now - and neither one takes more time than adding another comment to this story.

    1.  Write a LTE in support of the Constitution

    2.  Give those 16 Democrats some tangible proof that you support them.

    The links to both are located in this diary I'm shamelessly pimping.

    Thanks mcjoan for your third consecutive FISA story.  Looks like this one's at least getting some attention.  

    by SMWalt on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:27:44 AM PDT

    •  That's a great idea

      no shame in pimping a good diary!

      by racerx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:32:18 PM PDT

•  If neither accident nor

  luck, what was the anthrax mailing?  Warmest regards, Doc.

  by Translator on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:34:28 AM PDT

  •  Not by accident, but by omission

    Neocons are so tough and right in their own heads, aren't they?

    How about the fact OBL is still at large? Is that an accident, luck, or incompetence?

    However, the Loch Ness monster has not attacked us since GWB took office, and not enough liberals give him credit for that. It's been neither luck nor accident that it hasn't attacked us, obv.

    by BenJammin on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:57:02 AM PDT

  •  President Bush Said Anthrax Was Terrorists

    "As all Americans know, recent weeks have brought a second wave of terrorist attacks upon our country."

    Four Americans have died as a result of these acts of terrorism…The Postal Service and the FBI have offered a reward of up to $1 million for information leading to the arrest and the conviction of the anthrax terrorists…We do not yet know who sent the anthrax — whether it was the same terrorists who committed the attacks on September the 11th, or whether it was the — other international or domestic terrorists. We do know that anyone who would try to infect other people with anthrax is guilty of an act of terror…I’m proud of our citizens’ calm and reasoned response to this ongoing terrorist attack.

    by kirkaracha on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:29:02 PM PDT

•  First off, change the title of that law

  I don't agree that a law giving the president, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Attorney General unfettered authority to snoop on citizens in any way protects America. The Founders would be appalled at the sponsors' perverted reasoning.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:34:34 AM PDT

  •  It does in the same way

    that the Healthy Forests Act preserves our forests.

    by mkfarkus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:55:22 AM PDT

    •  By which I mean

      a Republican law entitled Safeguarding Our Daughters' Virginity Act would undoubtedly encourage gang rape.

      by mkfarkus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:56:42 AM PDT

      •  The ultimate deceptive title for a law...

        Translated from German, it was the 1933 "Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation", which suspended the Weimar Constitution and paved the way for Adolf Hitler's Third Reich.

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:07:17 AM PDT

•  GAAHH! My eyes!

  You should warn people before you post that porn!

  by Brooke In Seattle on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:34:43 AM PDT

  •  Bow chicka-wow-wow! n/t

    by eco d on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:35:30 AM PDT

    •  lol

      by k franklin on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:53:12 AM PDT

•  Rock and the Lieb

  What really gets my goat is that Lieberman can use the fact that Rock championed that despicable Senate bill. Disgusting.

  by eco d on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:34:58 AM PDT

•  Hey Joe,

  I believe our national security is paramount, and please be assured of my commitment to maintaining the balance between the crucial need for tools to fight the war on terror and the equally important need to protect our civil liberties.

  Show me again where you exhibited ANY concern for civil liberties? Or did I miss something?
  Asshat.

  by hazzcon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:36:46 AM PDT

  •  GI JOE Gave Bush The Matches

    to burn our Constitution

    by hopalong on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:57:46 AM PDT

•  LEGAL VS STALINIST/ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING

  This is the issue and it is not being reported as such.

  Republicans want to wiretap any body for any reason they want without a court order, without probable cause.

  Many of us have no problem with a LEGAL WIRETAP based on a COURT ORDER which provides a PAPER TRIAL based on PROBABLE CAUSE.  due to the nature and exigency of the circumstances, courts should be very lenient in granting the order.

  In fact we had something that worked quite well from 1976 until George W Bush.  It was called the FISA Act.  

  by davefromqueens on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:36:53 AM PDT

  •  Actually, in my view, the FISA act ...

    ...of 1978 didn't do such a good job of shielding Americans from government spies. Five objections from the FISA court in 19,000 requests for wiretap warrants? A bit unbalanced, I'd say. Still, better than NO warrants.

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:56:14 AM PDT

•  Blinders

  It has been neither an accident nor luck that America has not been attacked since that horrific day on September 11, 2001.

  Violating the Constitution is neither necessary nor sufficient to keep us from being attacked.

  Oh, and the war in Iraq was neither an accident nor luck. And the loss of human life has been far greater than 9/11.

  Thanks, Joe.

  by muledriver on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:38:49 AM PDT

•  I've been keeping elephants out of your cottage

  cheese for over 20 years now.  Trust me.  I need protection from you knowing how. AMNESTY  NOW.  I must keep protecting you in the future.

  What?  You don't believe me?  Well, show me any elephant prints in your cottage cheese!!  

  by Neon Mama on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:39:55 AM PDT

  •  Heh.

    by mcjoan on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:40:14 AM PDT

  •  Also Tigers

    Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm!

    Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.

    Homer: [uncomprehendingly] Thanks, honey.

    Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

    Homer: Hmm. How does it work?

    Lisa: It doesn't work; it's just a stupid rock!

    Homer: Uh-huh.

    Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?

    Homer: (pause) Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

    by kirkaracha on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:26:56 PM PDT

•  testing.. I just posted a diary...

  But it shows up as three diaries down on my list

  by cskendrick on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:40:44 AM PDT

  •  It's an old "untitled' draft I wanted to burn

    meh.. strange...

    by cskendrick on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:41:27 AM PDT

•  "Good faith"

  I supported that provision because those companies were asked to assist the intelligence community in defending the country, and they did so in good faith.

  Good faith to who?  The only beneficiaries of this good faith were Bush and their stockholders.  

  In fact, trampling our civil liberties is not good faith, it's illegal.

  by Five of Diamonds on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:42:37 AM PDT

  •  Lieberman violated a cardinal rule of usage

    It is never proper to use "good faith" and "Bush administration" in the same sentence.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:45:19 AM PDT

    •  For that matter Rockefeller and Intelligence

      Committee.

      by JML9999 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:47:20 AM PDT

      •  Excellent! (n/t)

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:51:45 AM PDT

      •  An oxymoron like military intelligence?

        by mkfarkus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:00:27 AM PDT

        •  Or just Moron?

          by mkfarkus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:00:43 AM PDT

  •  Qwest refused on advice of counsel

    were the others just so gormless that they didn't run a warrantless search by their lawyers?  

    by mkfarkus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:59:36 AM PDT

•  I wonder...

  "It has been neither an accident nor luck that America has not been attacked since that horrific day on September 11, 2001."

  Hmm, maybe it was the same thing that kept us from being attacked successfully for decades before the WTC bombing and in the decade between that and 911.

  Or in other words maybe these terrorist attacks were not the start of the End of the Word but instead small blips on the radar screen, blips best prevented from ever happening again by increasing security at home - in a way that doesn't direct contempt at the Constitution.

  I wonder what it's like to live in a constant state of fear from things that don't exist.

  by Stop It on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:42:39 AM PDT

  •  The Fifties

    Some people were scared in the fifties, and they subjected children to "duck and cover." I didn't have to do that, probably because our principal was a very smart woman. I think we did it once, probably because someone from the board of education was visiting.

    I hate that McCarthy and the cold warriors did that to us, and it's even worse now when it's 50 years later and we should know better. Has the public gotten no smarter in half a century?

    by JG in MD on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:50:32 PM PDT

•  The 1978 FISA bill?

  The one that was updated by the Patriot Act in 2001, inspiring Our Leader to say

  We're dealing with terrorists who operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, some of which were not even available when our existing laws were written. The bill before me takes account of the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorists. It will help law enforcement to identify, to dismantle, to disrupt, and to punish terrorists before they strike.

  ?

  That 1978 FISA law?

  (h/t GG)

  by RickMassimo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:42:48 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, that one.

    by mcjoan on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:46:33 AM PDT

    •  Sigh.

      When they know they're lying, I get angry.

      When they know I know they know they're lying, I get tired.

      by RickMassimo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:57:57 AM PDT

  •  Sophisticated.

    These are folks who still put out OBL videos on VHS.

    by JML9999 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:48:29 AM PDT

  •  The FISA that told them that Al Quida determined

    To make a major attack in the US, which shrub ignored?

    by manwithnoname on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:07:57 AM PDT

•  The WE want to Spy whomever act

  Why doesn't Joe and his buddies in the Reptile party just call their version of the bill "THE WE WANT TOO SPY ON WHOMEVER, WHENEVER FOR WHATEVER REASONS WE WANT BILL?" Because we don't believe in privacy or any other civil liberties except for us and our friends. Everyone else is the enemy. Your either 100% for us or your a terrorists. Enough all this hair splitting. These are fascists/ Imperialists the whole bunch and this charade that they're something  trying pull off  is wearing thin.

  by Blutodog on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:46:47 AM PDT

•  Give him great big kiss. Tell him that you

  love, tell him that you care, tell him that you'll always be there.
  So sweet.

  by flumptytail on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:48:20 AM PDT

  •  GBK-Does that include heavy petting? nt.

    by JML9999 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:50:15 AM PDT

    •  Shrubya would NEVER go beyond

      heavy petting.  Laura wouldn't let him.

      by mkfarkus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:01:52 AM PDT

  •  that picture just about made me straight!

    quick, I need two cabana boys, stat!

    by terrypinder on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:08:00 AM PDT

•  Got the Same Letter

  by hopalong on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:50:37 AM PDT

•  Gaaaack. Iccccck. That picture ...

  ...should be the visual come-on for the latest John Carpenter film.

  by Meteor Blades on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:52:44 AM PDT

  •  "I Know What You Did Last Invasion." n/t

    by eco d on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:53:48 AM PDT

•  That pr*ck didn't even bother to respond...

  to my rather unpleasant letter. Oh well.

  ~Doc~

  by EquationDoc on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:58:50 AM PDT

•  a-hah-hah-hah-hah of course democrats want to be

  like me. As I've shown the people in my constituency that I take principled stands such as when i recently defeated my opponents by opposing the war in Iraq.
  

  by Dave the Wave on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:02:58 AM PDT

•  It should read:

  "9/11 was at the same time the best thing that has ever happened to GWB and the worst thing to happen to America since Vietnam. This exposes the fact that the fortunes of GWB and those of America are in direct opposition. Lying to Americans is both his alpha and his omega and as such I vow to continue the lie forever."

  by FuddGate on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:04:19 AM PDT

•  Accident, Luck

  Does Joe think 9/11 happened because of an accident or bad luck?

  If the administration wants credit for their skill in averting another 9/11 then they should take some responsibility for a lack of skill in not preventing the first one.  Hey Condi and George - did you get the pdb about Bin Laden wanting to strike America?

  by 1world1life on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:04:46 AM PDT

•  bush's mandate? nt

  by irate on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:05:53 AM PDT

•  Ole Rockyfeller was in a big hurry to join him...

  The pubs are trying to make this happen at the last minute again, and are getting payback from Aug. 2007.
  Two choices here.
  1 Wait till Feb 2009 to update. (Adults back in charge)
  2 Separate amnesty for telcoms into a stand alone bill, and make sure it ONLY covers telcos and the bush maladministration for actions after 9-11-2001.
  Then restart the lawsuits to relect the fact that shrub started spying long before 9-11-2001.

  by manwithnoname on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:06:19 AM PDT

•  response from landrieu

  Dear Ms. XXXXXX:

  Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and immunity for telecommunications companies. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue and I apologize for the delay in my response.

  I understand your concerns about the immunity provisions within the legislation. While I supported the bill, I did so with several reservations--many of which you mentioned in your correspondence to my office. I ultimately supported the legislation because I was concerned about the impact of litigation on a variety of ongoing national security concerns.

  That being said, I absolutely agree that President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program without congressional approval was inappropriate. But immediately after the tragic events on 9/11, many telecommunications companies thought they had no choice but to comply with the government’s requests. Given the circumstances of the government’s requests, I ultimately concluded that the companies should not be punished for the Administration’s failure to adhere to the appropriate process.

  Finally, you should know that I attempted to strengthen the role of the FISA court during the debate on the FISA bill. For example, I supported an amendment that would have ensured that the FISA court would have been the exclusive means by which the federal government should conduct surveillance. By adopting this language, we would have made certain that President Bush or any future President, could not conduct a surveillance program without Congressional approval. Unfortunately, this amendment failed on a procedural vote.

  I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you about this important matter, and I hope you will continue to contact me on issues of mutual concern. Please feel free to also visit my website at http://www.senate.gov/... for more information on legislative affairs.

  With warmest regards, I am

  Sincerely,

  Mary L. Landrieu
  United States Senator

  I haven't let my blood cool enough to write a rational response.

  by alpelican on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:07:15 AM PDT

•  Can we get that picture off? Its clearly NSFW

  Seriously. I'm getting physically ill every time I see that picture when I refresh dailykos. It is not at all safe for human eyes to see. I am experiencing serious aversion to the front page right now, lol.

  by beholderseye on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:09:06 AM PDT

  •  like Jesus said..

    if your eyes see evil, it is better that you have gouged it out...

    by girlyman on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:11:37 AM PDT

•  is it me...?

  or does Lieberman look like Chancellor Palpatine everyday as he gets old?

  I wonder who would play Darth Vader in this case? Cheney?

  by girlyman on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:09:54 AM PDT

•  Telcos Can Be Compelled

  none of the telecommunications companies are holding the intelligence agencies hostage over immunity

  Of course they're not. If a telco's cooperation is required, but it doesn't cooperate, they will be compelled by the court to cooperate. If they defy a warrant, the defiant execs can go right to jail and their shareholders pay the huge fines.

  That's the rule of law. Bush's cronies like Lieberman are strangers to the rule of law, and they'd have us forget about it as they have. Because they are beyond the law. Now that's something we should turn on them ASAP.

  by DocGonzo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:32:36 AM PDT

  •  Lierberman forgot ‘alleged’

    If you listen to the White House they always carefully couch their language with "any actions the phone companies may have offered", or language to that effect. They do not admit that the phones companies actually did anything. But Lieberman forgot to provide cover for the phone companies and openly says the phone companies did offer assistance to the NEA.

    I mean, we all know they did, but from a legal point of view in a civil suite this language can make a difference. Do not admit anything.

    by se portland on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:48:28 AM PDT

    •  He's Just Cribbing The Republican Faxes

      Lieberman isn't actually a Republican, no matter how he sucks up to them. He doesn't get the daily faxes that keep their talking points all keyed to the central list out at Rove HQ. He just cheats off what he hears the rest chanting.

      He's like the loser kid following around the "cool kids" trying to talk and dress like them to get in, but who those kids will treat worse than the other nerds.

      By the same token, though, Lieberman probably doesn't have actual knowledge of the NSA spying's actual activities. He's too outside to be called as a witness or have "operative" statements.

      He's a total loser. And Harry Reid, who's let him keep the Homeland Security Committee Chair despite his Party defection, is aiding and comforting the enemy. And not even any enemy with anything to offer as a concession.

      by DocGonzo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:53:36 PM PDT

•  not by accident or luck for Clinton, either

  Nor is it by accident or luck that no terrorist attacked America between February 1993 and September 2001. No wiretapping during those years, no torture, no troops quaqmired in a Middle Eastern nation, habeas corpus remained intact. And. . . . . the perpetrators of that attack were apprehended, tried, convicted and are now in prison. How did Bill Clinton do it, Joe?

  by Tigris Lily on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:37:50 AM PDT

•  I need a unicorn chaser

  that pic made me feel dirty

  by Isara on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:05:41 PM PDT

•  Please oh please...

  Lieberman for McCain's vp.  Now THERE's a team that can't win a damn thing.

  by the1bostongirl on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:42:24 PM PDT

•  Ferraro/Clinton 1,010, 4th Amendment 99

  The sum of comments on front page articles since this one came out.  Depressing.

  Good to see where our priorities lie.  Ten comments on Ferraro/Clinton to every one on this FISA craziness eating our constitution.

  Well, I'll be back to harp some more on FISA tomorrow.  Maybe if I give my diary a fake name.  

  Mcjoan, thanks and keep up the fight!  The Act Blue Fight FISA page has not moved one iota all day.  

  by SMWalt on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:32:41 PM PDT

•  About picking running mates...

  What do Joe Lieberman and Geraldine Ferraro have in common?  They both got 'tapped' by fairly liberal Democratic presidential nominees to 'fill out the ticket'.  Perhaps Mondale and Gore both picked relatively conservative Democrats to 'balance' the ticket.  

  Memo to Barak Obama:
  If you get nominated, think hard about who'll be your running mate.  

  by david78209 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:10:12 PM PDT

•  Oh, boy! I was so excited! I got my reply from

  Joe Lieberman today about the FISA email I sent him like two weeks ago. I guess he didn't have much time the last few weeks for a quick reply, he was too busy trying to scare people!

  Fortunately, he has now reassured me that the lack of attacks since 9/11 has been no accident, it's only due to the hard work he and others have been doing protecting AT&T and Verizon! Good thing! Otherwise those scary brown people might have killed me and my entire state.

  Fucking douchebag.

  ~Doc~

  by EquationDoc on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:45:53 PM PDT