Obama expresses support for national security, angering his base

First he completely abandons his promises to use public campaign financing, now he supports letting private telecoms off the hook for helping Bush spy on Americans. What does this guy actually believe?

Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left

By Paul Kane
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.

In his most substantive break with the Democratic Party's base since becoming the presumptive nominee, Obama declared he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote, likely next week, despite misgivings about legal provisions for telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program of suspected terrorists.

In so doing, Obama sought to walk the fine political line between GOP accusations that he is weak on foreign policy -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called passing the legislation a "vital national security matter" -- and alienating his base.

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program," Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129.

This marks something of a reversal of Obama's position from an earlier version of the bill, which was approved by the Senate Feb. 12, when Obama was locked in a fight for the Democratic nomination with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Obama missed the February vote on that FISA bill as he campaigned in the "Potomac Primaries," but issued a statement that day declaring "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."

Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) continue to oppose the new legislation, as does Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). All Obama backers in the primary, those senior lawmakers contend that the new version of the FISA law -- crafted after four months of intense negotiations between White House aides and congressional leaders -- provides insufficient court review of the pending 40 lawsuits against the telecommunications companies alleging privacy invasion for their participation in a warrantless wiretapping program after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"The immunity outcome is predetermined," Feingold wrote in a memo today.

Obama came down on the side of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who argued that a provision in the new law reaffirmed that FISA, and that act's courts, gives the final say over government spying. President Bush has argued that a war-time chief executive has powers that trump FISA.

"It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance -- making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law," Obama said today.

Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the most prominent Republican opponent of the compromise bill, issued a statement today calling that exclusivity provision "meaningless because that specific provision is now in [the] 1978 act." Specter said Bush just ignored existing law in starting the warrantless surveillance program.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/20/obama_supports_fisa_legislatio.html

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Strange_bedfellows_team_up_to_lobby_0620.html

stockula:

Do you think you could find where any "promise" about fund usage was made? Since that was your non-sequitur opener, do you think you could possibly cite it?

Before I hit "Add Comment," I'm going to go ahead and pre-emptively say "I thought not."

Kisses.

EDIT: I'll make it easier on you, since you need some handicapping: find a statement that is at least as egregious as McCain violating the campaign funding law that has his name on it.

The thing is, the "restoration" of the FISA court law doesn't mean anything. The law was never changed. Bush was just ignoring it. And by granting immunity, you are making the law more difficult to enforce.

lol, ::gasps:: you mean, Obama angered his Al Qaeda?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z7sS566D8E

His word either means something or it doesn't.

OMG! Politics!

Surveillance is a sad and unavoidable legacy of 9/11, and this measure OBAMA supports attempts to soften the previous FISA legislation.

I think that one hard thing, and one very savvy thing about Barack Obama, is that he does not subscribe to a single platform.

As for the campaign financing decision > pfffft! Good for him and BS on "breaking a promise."

Let's hear abt when he put his hand on the flag pin and swore on a bible...

But I thought the messiah was going to change everything.

Not even the platform of change?

it's all political posturing friends. He wanted something to fire back at the republicans when they said that he was soft on terrorism. He can then say, "but hey, I voted for that fisa thing back in june don't you remember?" As far as campaign financing goes i think it's regrettable that Obama dropped out of public funding, but when you're up against someone who has opted in, then opted out, then opted into the public finance system to save his campaign and overcome Giuliani earlier in the primaries I guess that you have to do whatever is possible to win without breaking the law right? someone should really look into the fact that Sen. McCain thinks public finance is only a good idea when he needs it. Didn't what he did break the law? the one he and senator Feingold drafted? wow.

Exactly.

Lucy, championing everything and nothing all at the same time is no better than being a wet blanket. Ever heard of that phrase about stand for something or fall for.....ahhh, I am sure you have heard it, and it's an uber cliche, but COME ON! There is NOTHING savvy about being flighty. Eh, goes back to my argument about his nebulous change.....

So, I should take it you have mixed emotions on this post, no?

Uh huh.

Sowwy. Just trying to inject some humor, is all...."spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go doooowwwn, medicine go down, medicine go down!

If you or anyone have concerns that Obama is

and if you feel his position on any issues is unclear, then go read up on ANY NUMBER of issues were there are extensive PDF's as well as brief summaries of his positon on any number of issues.

I surely cannot defend and explain his postion on everything on the CE boards all day every day.

Not only does Obama have a lengthy blueprint for CHANGE, he has explanations of his position and rationale on countless issues.

BTW, as a liberal New Yorker, member of ACLU who had friends die in the world trade towers while other friends ran for their fucking lives, while I raced around town trying to find countless children (ANd we lived with military helicopters overhead and near Lincoln center where there was a quick makeshirt military base of multiple tanks and soldiers in full combat fatigue with assault weapons)...

it is a tough call and I can't blame anyone who sympathizes with the realization that the USA has to improve their surveilance strategies in the post 9/11 world.

[winner of run-on sentence constest for this thread]

Look, the people who will use this as evidence that Obama doesn't stand for anything are woefully and stupidly under-informed about the legislative process, the function of Congress, and what it means to be in a political party. The fact is that the first time this issue came up, Obama voted to strip immunity from telecom companies. He's come out in favor of stripping that immunity before. This time, he supported the majority for a number of reasons: 1) to salvage a compromise that his party leadership - the same party leadership that he needs to get elected and prevent stuff like this from happening again- worked hard for; 2) to close existing loopholes in law that assholes like Bush have exploited; and 3) yes, to avoid looking "soft on terror" to help his electoral chances in November. That's not pretty and makes for bad headlines sometimes, but that's how it happens.

Obama is a Senator and a legislator, which means that he doesn't have the executive luxury (yet) of setting law-enforcement policy on a grand scale. The willingness to compromise is not necessarily evidence of a lack of principle or plan, it's evidence that Obama's willing to give things to get them. To me, I think that's a sign of a good leader. You may disagree. There are lots of folks who pursue the perfect instead of the good on both sides of the aisle. That's cool. But those who do don't understand our government and they don't understand leadership.

(Edited to reflect the fact that I didn't realize the vote hadn't come up yet in the Senate. Thanks, Hooraydiation.)

"[The bill] does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml

I think it's funny/interesting that in the section dedicated to his faith "talking points" or whatever, he talks, or rather talked, about how this was no longer a Christian nation. Fine. But why would you insist on continuing to exploit, oops, I'm sorry, I mean reference scriptures out of the Old Testament during speeches to the public. I mean, Lucy, being the noble, anti-religious folk that you are, doesn't that make your blood boil??? Further more, I find it laughable that he insists, in his "blue prints of change", or rather it should be titled "his extensive list of rediculous, typical bleeding heart ideals that will certainly allow him to win the already blue states" to have civil rights and discrimination against the disabled as his top two priorities. What is this? 1950? Oooooo, hate crimes were up 8% in 2006 - Yeah, well, crime just in DC alone, was up something like 200% in 2006 (and it wasn't hate related, it was mostly robbery, so yeah, it's not about black vs. white, it's about the haves and the have not's - get it straight Obama). I think that his people have secretly tipped off that Dou Dou fellow from the UN to come over here so that they can somehow blow this whole fucking non-issue of racism into an even bigger non-issue.

Please find me a source which shows that American blacks and American whites are equally well off. Then explain how haves vs. have-nots is not a race issue in America.

They're not, but there's nothing stopping them from being so. Ask Barack and Michelle Obama. Race is not a barrier in America today.