If there's an October surprise it will prove warrantless wiretaps don't prevent "terrorism."

[dailykoff]

Right? Like the illegal wiretaps Bush and Cheney started in FEBRUARY of 2001 didn't prevent 9/11? I keep hearing these wise words about inoculating Obama against a possible terra strike, but as usual when Bushco wants something, their rationale makes absolutely no sense.

Furthermore, let's examine the results of Obama's possible votes in the event of a "terrorist" attack:

1. If he votes yes, it will prove he was rolled -- there is no connection between phonetaps and preventing terra.

2. If he votes no, it will prove he was right -- there is no connection between phonetaps and preventing terra.

So why do I keep hearing that he needs to vote yes? HE NEEDS TO VOTE "NO" ON WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS !!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[babylonsister]

1. It will also prove this admin FAILS. So why do 'mericans think

McSame is better at protecting this country? Seems like a reframing is in order.

[dailykoff]

3. Yes, absolutely. Whenever terra is part of the rationale,

you can count on the real reason being criminal.

[Kool Kitty]

6. A huge re-framing is in order.

If something does happen before the election, I think McCain will be the big loser. The supposed "security" vote that he supposedly has won't be worth a damn if there is another attack. That's the only card he and his supporters have been playing. Another attack means that Bush couldn't keep us safe and, since McCain has identified so closely with all Bush's policies, McCain won't be able to keep us safe either. I can never understand the logic of that argument.

[dailykoff]

7. And if Obama can say "look, all that illegal surveillance didn't do squat,"

it's not going to help the GOP make their case for Johnny.

[99th_Monkey]

20. Worse that "didn't do squat" ... I've heard it said often by people who should know,

that the massive data mining is an obfuscation that overwhelms the system with TOO MUCH irrelevant information,
actually making it MORE difficult ... like finding the proverbial needle in the haystack.

[Lint Head]

2. Exactly!

There will be an October or November surprise. You can always count on criminals to try to get away with murder, as they already have.
::dem:

[dailykoff]

4. And if Obama is playing Rambo he's going to lose to the real Rambo

or at least this years's official simulation.

[dailykoff]

5. It's also odd that Hoyer and Cheney roll out FISA

right when Obama is doing his shift-to-the-center routine, as if voting up heinous spy bills is a "centrist" position. It's pure fascism and if Obama votes for this thing he's going to get ripped to shreds by the MSM come fall.

[peace13]

8. I made my calls yesterday.

I hope that Obama does not vote for the tele coupe and I did call him as well as his cohorts in crime.

[dailykoff]

9. Good for you!

The public response appears to be overwhelming negative but you wouldn't know it to hear the spinners. Who in hell is going to vote for Obama in November because he voted for a fascist surveillance bill? The arguments for voting yes are completely ridiculous.

[peace13]

10. Is there a chance that it won't come to a vote?

Either way it is bad that he seems unconcerned.

[dailykoff]

12. I really don't think so.

Hoyer was hoping for a summer quickie and that plan got stalled, but I don't think there's any way he's going to let it slide. Cheney and the Telcos want this pretty badly and we always give them what they want. :mad:

[Hippo_Tron]

11. They will say critical intelligence was missed during the time when the spying wasn't allowed

And obviously that will be a complete lie, but people will believe it. It is reasonable to argue that Obama should take a stand and do the right thing on this one. But don't underestimate the RNC spin machine, especially if god forbid there is another attack.

[dailykoff]

13. They've been spying nonstop since they got into office.

What are you talking about?

[Hippo_Tron]

14. The "Protect America Act" expired in February 2008

And the current measure before Congress is the renewal of that. Bush will say that between February and July there was critical intelligence that could have been gathered that wasn't because the Democrats didn't give him the authority he needed to protect the country and that Obama voted against the Protect America Act's renewal meaning that if he gets into office we're going to have more missed intelligence and more terrorist attacks.

That will of course be complete and total bullshit, but people will believe it because the corporate media and the RNC will repeat it nonstop.

The fact that they have been spying nonstop since they got into office will be conveniently ignored even though it is the truth.

[dailykoff]

15. If there was a shred of evidence that there was any interruption in surveillance

that might hold water but there simply isn't. Yes they will lie, they've lied all along, so Obama is much better off not painting himself as a johnny-come-lately neocon since he's going to get blamed one way or the other.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. You may be right

It's very possible that Obama is missing the big picture which is that the Bush Administration no longer has any credibility and can be taken to task if they do try to lie about something like that. In 2002 I would say that there's no way to win that argument. In 2008 it may indeed be possible.

[dailykoff]

18. If he buys into this stupid bullshit he's screwed in the debates.

How is he going to argue that he has better judgment if he's backtracked and voted for an unconstitutional surveillance bill? He loses the national security argument to the navy hero. DUMB move.

[dailykoff]

19. I think he's been sold a bill of goods, yes.

He's been out of the loop campaigning so he might not realize just what a dead letter this is so I hope the public outcry is getting through.

[dailykoff]

17. Another thing: all that surveillance is worthless in preventing attacks.

There was surveillance galore alerting the WH of 911, which of course they ignored, and that's not a conspiracy theory, so it's very simple to show in a debate that there's no connection between surveillance and preventing terror in the first place.