Obama’s "new" leadership same as the old leadership - Today’s Headlines 6/23/08

[Caro]

Top Story

House votes to provide protection to phone firms
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on Friday that could shield phone companies from billions of dollars in lawsuits for their participation in the warrantless surveillance program begun by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks.
The Senate is already planning to capitulate, while pretending not to like the telecom immunity provision. So much for the new leadership Obama promised. It feels just like the same-old, same-old to me.—Caro

What Now Cartoons

For more headlines, visit MakeThemAccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[no limit]

1. If Obama doesn't show some leadership on this I will lose all respect for him

don't get me wrong, will still vote for him over McSame but I will do so holding my nose. And this is coming from a guy that's been an Obama supporter since Edwards dropped out.

[Larkspur]

8. Boycott donating to Obama's campaign

I'll vote for him in Nov but I won't donate a penny to his campaign if he doesn't act like a leader and stop the civil rights abuses in this bill and the retroactive telecom immunity provision.

The only power we have is the power of our purses.

[whistle]

2. Are you saying that Obama is not the leader of the Democratic Party?

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. After looking @ the details, I can't agree. This has nothing to do

with this election ... the telcos will have to show in court that they received assertions from the government. At that point, they can be held blameless - and the focus will shift, as it should, to *'s questionably legitimate regime.

[robinlynne]

9. bull. read it again. Remember that at least one telecom said NO this is illegal and

that it started 7 months BEFORE 9/11, so the tie to the "war on terror" and 9/11 is as much a lie as the WMDs in Iraq.
Felonies WERE committed. 40 cases came up through the courts. This is changing the law to ake felonies committed 7 years ago legal.
There is NOTHING good about this. There is no pink prism to look through and find the "good' or the "ok" in this!

[Fredda Weinberg]

11. I haven't forgotten anything. The crimes are committed by the executives

who made false claims, not private companies that have no way of knowing what the FISA court will eventually do in a given instance.

I don't know why you have to bring up 9/11 ... as a NYer I don't like either side using that canard. FISA predates the 2nd WTC bombing ... yes, I remember the first.

So please, take your bull elsewhere. I doubt you even know what the bill does.

[robinlynne]

12. The reason I bring up 9/11 is because they are using it as the reason for the spying.

The only reason. And the spying predated the attacks by 7 months! The entire argument for signing this bill is based on a lie. not a mistak

e. a lie.
the telecoms have lawyers. They knew theyw ere breaking the law. they were paid billions of dollars to do so.
Even John Ashcroft wouldn't sign on to it, remember?

[Fredda Weinberg]

16. You're not reminding me of anything. The facts remain: this is not a

blanket immunity. It is a crucial first step for legal accountability. Sorry if you're still drinking kool-aid ... I'm trying to get you to see simple facts and you keep reacting emotionally.

[robinlynne]

21. Legal accountability has been happening in the courts for 5 years. This ENDS

legal accountability.
or do you still believe John Kerry is going to count the votes in Ohio?

[atreides1]

10. It has everything to do with this election

Not much "Change" if Obama does the same thing that Bush is doing now, letting the telcos off with a note saying that it was okay for them to violate the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.

"the telcos will have to show in court that they received assertions from the government"

That's the biggest problem, all the US Attorney General has to do is to say that the President requested this and they get off free and clear!



Which means that any president can write a letter giving telcos immunity, any president!!!

So much for "Change"

[Fredda Weinberg]

13. Not that the president requested ... but intelligence services will require

emergency access. That's the way it was before *'s questionably legitimate regime - and will always be thus. The results may not be admissible in court, but that's always been the trade-off.

And if the president, or the attorney general, does represent falsely, don't blame the company that responded. In this case, we'll want their cooperation for congressional hearings, even if they can't be public either.

[JackORoses]

4. Thanks for your 'concern'. By the way, the syrup called, it wants its name back.

[Fredda Weinberg]

5. Carolyn Kay was promoting progressive causes before you had a DU

on which to to insult her. Shame on you.

[JackORoses]

14. and you were marching in the streets for Hillary when I was in diapers, yeah, yeah, yeah

we all know you are a super activist, Fredda.
It's just a shame that you don't support the next President, that's all.

[Fredda Weinberg]

17. Apologize to Carolyn, not me. I handed out lit for HRC, btw ... and yeah

She's still my senator. Hurry for our side!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. who pissed in your Cheerios?

:(

[JackORoses]

15. a gaggle of 'concerned' posters. Their motives are obvious.

[stillcool]

7. What happened to Harry Reid?

[kpominville]

20. Reid leads the Senate

But the Dems do not really control the senate since Lieberman started caucusing with the Republicans.
Lieberman claimed he would caucus with the Dems, but it is clear now that he lied.

[stillcool]

22. The OP stated that Obama was the 'leader'...

I don't understand why it is the Senate, and Harry Reid would need Obama's vote to pass the FISA bill. If the Democrats want it passed, they certainly should be able to cover Obama so that he can vote no, and have no effect on the bills passage.

[kpominville]

23. Obama does not control the Senate...

...any more than Bush did when the Republicans controlled it.

Bush still couldn't complete his goal of destroying social security even when the Republicans controlled the house and senate.

The conservative corporate media is going to try and blame Obama when this kind of thing happens but it is not true that he could have stopped it.

Obama can vote against it in the Senate but he could not stop it from passing in the house. Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid and the "Blue Dog Dems" are the ones to blame for this.

[debbierlus]

18. These are the true tests of leadership

Obama wasn't in the Senate for the Iraq vote. This is a important barometer of how he will govern.

[kpominville]

19. How Is This Obama's Fault???

Can someone explain to me what they expected Obama to do to force the house Dems to vote the way he wanted?
What power does he wield over them? He has a title, but little actual authority.

IT IS UP TO US TO VOTE THESE PEOPLE OUT OF OFFICE!

Quit blaming someone else and then saying you are going to stop participating!!!
That is how things got this bad in the first place!!!