Craven, Cowardly Lying in the New York Times

[elfs]

In an op-ed called The Audacity of Listening, Washington Post writer Gail Collins demonstrates what I find most infuriating bout the second ring of Obama punditocracy: excuse making.

Let me say off the top that I don't believe that Obama has flip-flopped as much as the Rovian-led attack dogs at Fox would have us believe. The Republican talking points are trying very hard to pin the flip-flop thing on Obama because it's McCain's greatest weakness, but I don't buy it. Obama's been pretty damned consistent on his statements about Iran, Iraq, the economy, gay marriage, gun control, and so forth. I even understand the public financing thing, which would take more inches than you've got time for.

But Collins makes the unexcusable and revolting sin of lying to spin when she says of Obama's FISA vote: "Putting some restrictions on the government's ability to wiretap is better than nothing, even though he would rather have gone further."

No, Ms. Collins, No! There already were restrictions! It was called The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and it already had appropriate restrictions in place. The 2008 FISA Amendment didn't provide for more restrictions: instead, it removed all viable restrictions imaginable from the executive's power. Obama didn't vote to add restrictions. There are no notable new restrictions.

What we have here is not "new restrictions," it's an admission that Congress in too fucking craven and cowardly to enforce its own laws, to do what must be done, and to bring those who have broken the laws of the land to justice. That process is called impeachment. But Congressfools don't want to set precedent because many of them think about running for president someday and don't want this threat, or do want this power.

And Obama voted for it so John McCain (who didn't even bother to show) doesn't have something with which to beat him over the head in the event an unpleasant October Surprise comes along. It's that simple. It's pure politics.

And I'm revolted: both by Obama's vote, and by the sycophants like Ms. Collins sucking up to him this way.

(Even worse: I found this article via Andrew Sullivan, who gives it a postive "must read" advocacy.)

Comments

[heofmanynames.livejournal.com]

Not to, like, singe your whiskers, but it's even worse than that: the "new" FISA REMOVES restrictions. Yet, as we read this, the ACLU is framing a lawsuit to challenge this stinky hairball before SCOTUS.

[heofmanynames.livejournal.com]

ooops, sorry - you already said that. I blame the meds....

How about a rousing chorus of "Love Me, Love ME, Love Me, I'm A Liberal"?

[srmalloy.livejournal.com]

I wonder whether the clauses protecting telecommunication companies from lawsuits for "past and future cooperation" could be considered to be an ex post facto law, specifically prohibited under the Constitution.

[cthulu-for-pm.livejournal.com]

My understanding of such things, limited as it is, is that you can't make something illegal restrospectively, but you can make things that were illegal to be legal from any point on, including from some point in the past.

Now, if anyone can understand what I just wrote, could you please explain it to me? :-/

[heofmanynames.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it were such - I'm kinda fond of the way it renders equal protection under the law both obsolete and inappropriate.

Personally, I think it's high time we dust off the 9th Amendment