Barack Obama Responds

Earlier, devil posted the open letter to Senator Obama from the Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right group on my.barackobama.com, which, with over 16,000 members, is now the largest group on the site.

Senator Obama has now responded via Joe Rospar's blog:

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer.  Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country's destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok.  But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

To the campaign's credit, they also have three members of their policy staff hanging out in the comments of the post including Danielle Gray, Deputy National Policy Director, Denis McDonough, Senior Foreign Policy Advisor, and Ben Rhodes, Foreign Policy Advisor and Senior Speechwriter.



Display:


Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 7)

I oddly don't feel blown off.

Impressive.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:18:52 PM EST

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 5)

Yeah, right there with you.  Here's what I want in a political leader:

  1. Agree with me (most of the time)
  2. Fight for what you believe in
  3. Respect my concerns
  4. Don't lie to me

I still don't agree with his position---even strongly disagree---but he made some fair points, and he didn't lie like some folks are doing about their not being immunity b/c it gets referred to the court.

I'm OK with this.  But I think I'll stay in the MyBO FISA group.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:32:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I feel gently blown off (2.00 / 1)

... which is nicer than I might have felt, but still doesn't feel so good.


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:33:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I feel like I've been patted on the head and told (none / 0)

'children should be seen and not heard'.....in other words....

patronized


by merbex on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:49:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I feel like I've been patted on the head and t (2.00 / 1)

If that is how you feel than you did not read the letter OR you are just refusing to take it seriously because you disagree with his position so vehemently.

Anyone who pays attention to this campaign and this candidate with a clear head can see that he does listen. He just doesn't always do what you tell him to.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:58:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's what I've been saying. Barack is an asshole (none / 0)

he thinks that whatever his way is, is the best way.

it's something you need to succeed, but ...


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:37:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I feel like I've been patted on the head and t (none / 0)

and yet you talk...

I don't agree with his decision on a whole but it's better than nothing. Are you only seeing the tip of the iceberg because there is more under the surface than you realize...


by SleepingIn on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:30:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 1)

I'm staying in the group too.  Have you see the Blue America tool to contact Senators?  Pretty cool.  I featured it it my last diary, check it out.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/3/16414 9/9447


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:50:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 4)

Everyone should stay in... It sounds like Obama is actually advocating doing that in his email.  Its nice that a political leader will at least consider what his followers are saying.  

I am a big Obama supporter; I disagree strongly with this decision, but the way he has handled the group reminds why I have supported him since I voted for him in the 2004 Senate Primary.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:56:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 2)

He's considering what his followers are saying, but he's also declaring his willingness to completely reject their position.  All of this outrage has not affected his decision one iota.


Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.
by Endymion on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because you (2.00 / 1)

have to vote for him, or you can stay home. He needs to win over people who are willing to vote McCain.

That means he may have to shit on you...deal with it, it's politics.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:37:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

mistaken political calculation (none / 0)

The traditional moderate Republicans are not so likely to swing, in that they perceive McCain as only pandering to the whackjobs, but ultimately "one of us." It's the Ron Paul wing who are in play. many ready to 'hold their nosde' on economics this year, but only for Dems they see as 'right' on those issues, ie civil liberties, that they expect Dems to agree with them.




Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012
by benmasel on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:06:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Every Ron Paul supporter (2.00 / 1)

I know and I know plenty, they're all disaffected Republicans hate Barack Obama with a passion and are all staying home, voting Barr, or some are even voting McCain reluctantly to keep the "Moveon.org liberal" out of the White House.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:33:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe a regional variation (none / 0)

as to whom Paul attracted?




Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012
by benmasel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:13:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 2)

FISA is mostly a netroots pet issue, especially the part about retroactive telecom immunity.

I don't get the part where he has to make us 100% happy 100% of the time.

It's like we're spoiled children or something...


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:55:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 2)

Hey!

I'm good with that just as soon as you explain to me whey 81% of Americans polled on this issue do NOT want the Telcos to get immunity.

This is the biggest issue of the Bush Presidency; funny you never noticed.

Must be a netroots thing.


by Pericles on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:40:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My point exactly (2.00 / 1)

No politician can represent you 100% of the time.  It is ridiculous to try and force any politician to meet that requirement.

I could easily say that I won't vote for Obama because he still will not support same-sex marriage, but then again, it is not like anyone who does could currently get elected President.

What happened, happened, and unfortunately we can not change that.  For me, it is much more important to get a President who will follow the letter and the spirit of the law in the future.  I am more worried about who is going to get to nominate the replacements for Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsberg on SCOTUS.

While Obama is the nominee for President, he is also still just 1 of 100 Senators.   At this point everyone of us should also be holding the Senators of our states responible and let them know how we feel.


by monkeyga on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:40:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My point exactly (2.00 / 2)

I could easily say that I won't vote for Obama because he still will not support same-sex marriage, but then again, it is not like anyone who does could currently get elected President.

Yet the main problem is...he has never come out in favor of supporting same sex marriages (versus civil unions), and has never made same sex marriages a cornerstone policy or even made a large speech about it.  He has never taken a PRO position on it, only to now take a laze faire position on it in order to get elected.

He said it's a bad bill, but better than what was available before.  --That means it's still a bad bill!

He said it's not the way he would have written the legislation.  --If I recall he's still a member of the United States Senate, why not write his own ammendment or even his own version of the bill!!!???


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:39:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My point exactly (none / 0)

Yet the main problem is...he has never come out in favor of supporting same sex marriages (versus civil unions), and has never made same sex marriages a cornerstone policy or even made a large speech about it.  He has never taken a PRO position on it, only to now take a laze faire position on it in order to get elected.

He's said marriage should be left up to the state, but the federal government and all states must recognize civil unions affording identical rights and benefits to same-sex couples. Name one of the viable presidential candidates from the primaries who took a more progressive stance. I mean, he's even more progressive than Clinton because he wants a full repeal of DOMA.

He said it's a bad bill, but better than what was available before.  --That means it's still a bad bill!

He called the original bill bad. He's called the current version an imperfect but acceptable compromise. You can't possibly claim to not understand that difference.

He said it's not the way he would have written the legislation.  --If I recall he's still a member of the United States Senate, why not write his own ammendment or even his own version of the bill!!!???

Nothing is preventing him from writing it, but he won't get enough votes to pass it. Between the blue dogs and Republicans it would be a hard sell under any circumstances, but it's basically impossible during an election year. So, you'd rather he burn his time and political capital on a lost cause?

Anyway, what's your actual problem here? You haven't presented one legitimate criticism. You just seem to be lobbing clumsy attacks for the sake of fighting.


by noop on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:13:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 4)

It's the fourth amendment ... the constitution that's what you call a netroots pet issue. A lot
of Americans have died to protect the rights you think are a "pet issue for the netroots."  

And just to help you get a grip....the congresscritters that voted yes got $$$$$$$ lots of
$$$$$ from  the telecoms...our congressman got $11K from Comcast.  The ones who voted no got zip, zero nada.

Obama's response is a weak apology for a strong betrayal.  And the only reason he bothers is because the netroots have made him nervous.  But not nervous enough to defend our rights.


by jd2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:15:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Same old, same old: all talk no action!! (1.50 / 2)

You've been had again!


by suzieg on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Same old, same old: all talk no action!! (none / 0)

So nice to see Little Miss Sunshine drop in from Freeperville to give us her pearls of wisdom once again.


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:15:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 2)

I just did a diary on FISA.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/3/16414 9/9447#readmore

Regardless what happens with the July 8th amendment, the FISA fight is far from over.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:22:09 PM EST

This is just ``lawyer talk'' (1.50 / 4)

Frankly, the cowardice of the Dem nominee for President to take the right stand tells me that no discernible change is going to happen in November unless by some quirk of fate Nader is elected. Which is of course not going to happen. So I guess we are ``screwed''.


by ann0nymous on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:26:40 PM EST

We'll get our fucking civil service back (2.00 / 2)

and the goons will fall on hard times in the gov't. It's good enough, it will suit.

It's all I would have expected out of a Hillary presidency, and it's all that I demand out of an Obama presidency.


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And he is now going to walk back on Iraq also (1.25 / 4)

Wonder what the so called ``progressive establishment''-- likes of MoveOn, Nation, Kos etc saw in him. I hope that he is at least an able administrator.      


by ann0nymous on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:41:56 PM EST

not a walkback, as far as I'm given to understand (none / 0)

mostly a "I'll give the military their orders, and they'll figure out how to get them done".

some flexibility != going back on his word.


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:52:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not even sure (2.00 / 1)

it's flexibility, as much as common sense. If all his generals say that 16 months is too severe a pace, and dangerous (for whatever reason) is he really supposed to go "So?".

16, 18, 20, whatever. They need to come home as soon as is safely possible.


by Neef on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:06:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not even sure (none / 0)

exactly.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:09:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not even sure (2.00 / 1)

WOw, who's repeating republican talking points now?


If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat
by rankles on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:44:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What are you talking about? (none / 0)

The Republican talking point is "stay the course until victory." Although, sometimes it's "100 years." There was also McCain's more recent "I will never surrender in Iraq."

In any case, the Republicans are much more concerned about staying than they are about our troops' safety.


by noop on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:25:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What are you talking about? (none / 0)

No kid, the republican talkng point is that we should NOT have timelines for withdrawal.  We've been fighting against that ridiculous notion for three years, we even elected a congress based on that very idea.

Here you come along and state that timelines don't matter, just as the rethugs have been saying.  It is YOU who are parroting right wing talking points, sonny.


If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat
by rankles on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:19:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not even sure (none / 0)

It reminds me of the story of the farmer with a wolf, chicken and grain that needs to cross the river in a boat but can only take two at a time. There has to be strategy involved in a withdrawal, because as the troops come out, there WILL be more attacks, and we need to be sure we don't remove so many so fast that more men die because of it.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:12:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not even sure (none / 0)

yea but

my wolfish dog now eats grain. I don't think he likes it but he's jealous of the horses.
If they get grain he sure as hell does.

Adaptation can really screw up planning


McCain just lied again
by wrb on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:31:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

most dogs eat grain (none / 0)

most dogfood is mostly corn


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:36:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Try Telling that (2.00 / 1)

to Moveon.org


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:40:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More of a full sprint backwards! (none / 0)

NO, that is not how it works.

The NCA issues the order to the JCS for a plan for a withdrawl.  The JCS then come back with a plan.  The NCA then approves or tweaks the plan according to his/her wishes AND the military command structure excecutes his/her orders.

That is how it happens.  I agree it may be longer than 16 months.  It may be 24 months, and we all know there will be a QRF left on station probably in the size of 15-20,000 soldiers not including support and C&C groups.

However, if the NCA says he wants out...guess what...the military gets out.  Period.  Full stop.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:46:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And he is now going to walk back on Iraq also (2.00 / 4)

Oh boo hoo. Can you recall the last time -- heck, any time, a candidate took the complaints of the activist base, acknowledged them, explained his differences and didn't pander?

That's what Kos and the rest of us saw in him. A leader we'd not agree with 100% of the time, but one that would treat us, and the country, like grown ups.

Now it's our turn to act like grown ups. Keep fighting for what we believe in, but let's not whine like toddlers if it doesn't go our way.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And he is now going to walk back on Iraq also (2.00 / 2)

I don't know how anyone can feel like they are being condescended to, either. This, to me, is a thousand times better than a candidate just making a speech, saying that his supporters have spoken and he is rethinking his position. He is LEADING, defending his position and trying to explain himself. While still accepting input from people and making his advisors watch, communicate and (presumably) take notes. Not staffers, either, his actual foreign policy advisors. The ones that could actually MAKE a difference.

When would you EVER think you'd be able to sit and chat with Paul Wolfowitz while he answered tough questions and talked about his position on the war?


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:21:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Getting home safe (none / 0)

While the American people are now strongly in favor of leaving Iraq ASAP, it is also with the understanding to do it as safely as possible.  That is what he is stating.

If you actually think that HRC would have pulled all of our troops out in 120 days, you are a fool.  This is not an 'I told you so' moment.

The last thing we need is for our candidates to be seen as wrecklessly endangering our troops.  That alone would probably be enough to ensure a McCain victory.  The fact that Obama is stating publically that the safety of the troops will come first is going to assure a lot of fence sitters that they can come to our side.  He is also going to take away a major argument that the GOP was ready to make.

I do trust Obama to bring our troops home as fast as possible.  I never expected that he would get it done by May 2009.  I do anticipate that he will be doing everything he can to get as many home by the fall of 2010 as possible.  This is very rapid, especially when you compare it to Mr. 100 years.

Think how wonderful that will be, going into the mid-term elections and the Democrats able to say they held their promise to bring our troops home, and bring them home safe, all while keeping Americans safe at home.


by monkeyga on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:52:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Getting home safe (none / 0)

Well, bring some home. He wants to redeploy to Afghanistan. Honestly, though, I think that might be better for some soldiers anyway. The ones who intend on staying soldiers. Easier to fight when you know who you're fighting and why.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:58:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Getting home safe (none / 0)

He'll still be trying to get them home by 2012 at your position, and he'll be running on that fact for re-election.  Because he's the only one that can get them home!  -BS!

If he wants them home, they come home.  HE would be the National Command Authority!  He issues the orders, the Generals carry them out.  

OBAMA: Re-deploy out of Iraq in 18-36 months with a minimum QRF force staying in Iraq, starting in 180 days.  Get it done.

CJCS:  Yes sir!

Result:  Forces are re-deployed, as the President ordered.  It really is that simple.  

Getting them home safe, and the people who supported us, can be done quickly and orderly.  Not on a dime, granted, but it can be done quickly.  If the Iraqi's can't after 5 years put up QRF's that can hold Baghdad, they won't do it in the next 4 years either.  Their trained forces are roughly 75% of what we have on station right now.  Are they combat ready?  It's not really our problem.  The Iraqi's won't do it unless they have to.  If we tell 'em we will be 90% gone in 18-30 months you will see a dramatic improvement in their performances.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:58:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He is Leading, defending his position (none / 0)

No, he is simply restating the position that got us all upset in the first place. His defense is weak and easily punctured. IF his people review the questions posted on the "live" blog and actually, substantively ANSWER them, I will be impressed. Maybe even convinced. But all that happened was that he penned a weak response to a passionate crowd, posted it, and had a couple of staffers hang around and answer NO actual questions about the specifics, merits and shortcomings of the bill. It LOOKED good but it was an empty exercise.


by aahhgh on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:54:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He is Leading, defending his position (none / 0)

I agree. I hope those guys were there to do more than just try to smooth people down. I hope they took notes.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And he is now going to walk back on Iraq also (none / 0)

When contrasting grown ups and children on the road of life....C.K.Chesteron wrote:

>I was subconsciously certain as a child and I am
consciously certain as an adult that there was the white and solid road and the worthy beginning of the life of a man who afterwards darkens it  with dreams
or goes astray in self-deception.  It is only the grown man who lives a life of make beleve and
pretending; and it is he who has his head in a
cloud.<

So kudos to the children who can spot a phoney grown up a mile off.


by jd2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:38:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't it obvious (2.00 / 1)

they built him up to be something he's not and never claimed to be only because he wasn't Hillary Clinton.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:39:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And he is now going to walk back on Iraq also (2.00 / 0)

If you honestly think Nader could manage jack shit, you're an idiot.


by ArkansasLib on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:10:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And he is now going to walk back on Iraq also (none / 0)

Nader isn't a liar.  There's always that.


If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat
by rankles on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:46:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (none / 0)

Wow, did anyone read the comments over there? Some of these people are a little scary they're so uninformed (one person posted that the Patriot Act "became" the FISA bill, yikes).
I'd much rather see the Obama campaign post on Daily Kos and deal with real questions from well informed voters rather than the hero worship going on over there.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:49:14 PM EST

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 1)

Hey 'sko'

As a regular poster both here and 'there' you'd probably make more friends in the movement if you refrain from tagging all of us as 'uninformed' based on the comments of a few.

MYBO is revolutionizing politics and just defeated the best machine in Democratic politics.

It won't kill you to show a little respect..and class.  Finally, I've sat through quite a few fool's errands here at MyDD and saw them as such-the rants of fools, not atypical of this entire space.  

So please, ditch the crap where it's supposed to go-not on this blog.

Thanks


by ChangeMatters on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:55:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this is now officially a capitulation (2.00 / 2)

why can't he stand on his principles? Why the retreat?


by tarheel74 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:05:38 PM EST

His principles, or yours? (2.00 / 3)

He can't stand on your principles all the time.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:57:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 3)

This is really disappointing.

He knows as a Professor of Constitutional Law  that this bill will legitimize Bush/Cheney's violation of the 4th Amendment Right of all Americans

"...to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

These warrantless wiretaps were expressly ordered by the Chief Executive, with the full help and knowledge of most of the telecoms (yay, QWEST!!).

They could not be more clear violations of the letter and spirit of our Constitution.

For Obama to say to me

"  ...I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future..."

"Firm intention" ??
"Comprehensive Review" ??
"Further recommendations" ??

is just plain insulting to me and my intelligence.

Obama, don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining.

I know WHY you did this.  I know WHAT you're doing.  I know WHERE this is supposed to get you.

I'm not going to go there with you.


by dembluestates on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:09:21 PM EST

Sounds like you're a lost cause (1.00 / 0)

as far as helping get us Dems back into power.

If not Obama, can I ask who (which viable pres. candidate) does live up to your standards?

That's a trick question, of course.  

McCain voter?


by Garret on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:35:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sounds like you're a lost cause (none / 0)

Yeah, that's right.  Who you gonna call?  

I don't know if this was supposed to turn out like this.


by dembluestates on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sounds like you're a lost cause (1.00 / 2)

What is this 'power' you speak of? So glib. We gotta support Obama no matter what.

What if Obama was a murderer?

Rapist?

Must we still support him because he calls himself a 'Democrat'? Because the alternative is McCain.

I can assure you pal that politicians care about only one thing: The Vote.

If they do something and you protest but still vote for them.....

They don't change their ways.

Why should they?

By voting for folks, remember all those 'low-info' ReThug voters and similar Independents that have voted 'against their interests...' for the last 40 years, you cut your own throat politically.

That's you  pal.

How you like your Reagan soft in the middle or over easy?
.


by Pericles on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sounds like you're a lost cause (none / 0)

What's the point of fighting to put Dems in power if they're just as willing to trample on the Constitution/rule of law as Bush and his GOP cronies?

What happened to the Barack Obama who opposed the Protect America act and said he'd support a filibuster of any bill that featured telecom immunity?

And most importantly, what happened to the fighting netroots? Have we become infected with the same strain of Dear Leaderitis that infected the r-wingers in this country?

What to do? Don't send the BO campaign until they come around on this issue.

Glenn Greenwald has a great post on this today, btw.


by JohnS on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:32:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sounds like you're a lost cause (none / 0)

What's the point of fighting to put Dems in power if they're just as willing to trample on the Constitution/rule of law as Bush and his GOP cronies?

What happened to the Barack Obama who opposed the Protect America act and said he'd support a filibuster of any bill that featured telecom immunity?

And most importantly, what happened to the fighting netroots? Have we become infected with the same strain of Dear Leaderitis that infected the r-wingers in this country?

What to do? Don't send the BO campaign until they come around on this issue.

Glenn Greenwald has a great post on this today, btw.


by JohnS on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:32:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 2)

Without getting into the FISA debate itself, for which I basically forgive Senator Obama on the grounds of electoral necessity, it seems remarkable how the essentially 'progressive' mechanism of his web-based community has allowed both a groundswell of dissent and a dialogue with the candidate and his staff on this issue.  Like, wow.

This is the Dean movement in growing maturity, the candidate basically promoting, or at least condoning, dissent from within the ranks of supporters while maintaining the discussion within the context of this support.  The mere fact that this dissenting group has chosen to grow here as opposed to some unaffiliated site is a testimony to this approach and implies dissenting loyalty to the candidate.  We are growing up.

It should be noted that Obama's campaign is taking some hits from the mainstream media over this phenomenon and yet persists in dealing with it as a natural development of the broad 'grass roots' paradigm that they have pioneered.  That in itself is somewhat impressive and demonstrates a genuine commitment on the part of the campaign, and the supporters, to making this work.  Imagine how this might evolve after Obama is sworn in and he has a bidirectional conduit to the large population of people who donated, organised and volunteered to make his presidency possible.  I'm impressed all 'round.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:11:10 PM EST

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 2)

It should be noted that Obama's campaign is taking some hits from the mainstream media over this phenomenon and yet persists in dealing with it as a natural development of the broad 'grass roots' paradigm that they have pioneered.  That in itself is somewhat impressive and demonstrates a genuine commitment on the part of the campaign, and the supporters, to making this work.

They aren't pimping it. They aren't going out there and saying, "look how cool we are, we welcome dissent." That would be such condescension, and it makes me happy to see that it isn't happening.
"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 1)

I agree, and didn't expect they would.  The media is treating this as an embarrassment and is missing what I consider the underlying point, pretty typically.  But the campaign is ignoring the media reaction in this case and dealing directly with the issue raised among supporters which is the way it should be, whether you accept Obama's position on FISA or not.  This is Obama's 'core' constituency and he apparently puts a pretty high value on it, as he should.  The media can go hang in this instance.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:24:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 1)

They'll catch up. Typically, the way this game was played was that the Dems said something, the GOP criticized it, and the Dem called a press conference to talk about it. Essentially, what they said to the press was, "I never said that! What I said was this!" This is how Obama works:

Less than four hours later, after the town hall meeting, Obama appeared before reporters for another statement and round of questions to "try this again."

"Apparently I was not clear enough this morning," he said. He blamed any confusion on the McCain campaign, which he said had "primed the pump with the press" to suggest "we were changing our policy when we haven't."


Which accomplishes the same thing, but in a way that puts the blame on the media, not McCain. Essentially saying to the media, "Catch up, get it straight and don't make me have to tell you this again."


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (none / 0)

No, IMO what the Obama campaign has done is say:

Here is your turd pie, and oh by the way...we're listening and understand your frustrations.  So, here you go!  Have this topping of tough shit whip cream to go on top.

Enjoy!  Now rant all you want, it won't make a difference.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:04:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 1)

Right.

It is good that he responded. That it, in it's way, revolutionary. But his response sucked. It wasn't actually a response, but it was an acknowledgment that a group of his supporters are very unhappy. That's good. But if the acknowledgement is simply "I hear you but I'm not listening to you" then it's really just a variation on the topdown mentality that has always characterized politics.

If Obama had weighed the concerns raised and been persuaded to act differently, then it would have been a wonderful moment for people-powered politics. It wasn't.


by aahhgh on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (none / 0)

No?  No it isn't remarkable that he has a bidirectional channel of communication with supporters?  No his supporters chose to dissent within his own web environment rather than an unaffiliated website?  You said no then went on a basically unconnected rant of your own.  This is not the stuff of discourse and merely polemics.

You are entitled to your opinion, I just don't see what relevance it has in this instance to my comment.  Thoughts?


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:04:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Barack has decided (2.00 / 1)

to pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.


by andgarden on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:16:34 PM EST

Piss off (1.00 / 5)

Hell, Shrub has been pissing on your head for seven years.  He said he would like to several perspectives and then make a judgement. I guess you just want to jump right out and get them killed or something.


by Mae Scott on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

andgarden, you know (2.00 / 1)

i've been the biggest hardass on the 'net over Patriot, FISA, etc throughout the nomination process, but I just don't feel it.

Leaving the group up on his site is worth something or other. Let's see what happens with the Amendments. Attaching any of the 3, even Specter's weak one, kicks the can back to the House.

Meanwhile, let's grab the rest of the Senators.




Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012
by benmasel on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:23:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, he's the leader of the party (2.00 / 2)

and he's flinging falsehoods about the legislation. I think it's hard to move past that.


by andgarden on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:35:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 5)

The presidential candidate just responded to the netroots. I think that is a victory unto itself.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:21:03 PM EST

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 2)

Thank you landstander. What other candidate has done that?


by Mae Scott on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:25:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 2)

To be fair, Howard Dean, John Edwards and a few other primary candidates... but as far as actual nominee, you are right.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:57:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly (2.00 / 3)

Has that ever happened before?

Not really.

This is a big win for us.


"Live your beliefs and you can turn the world around." --Thoreau
by Populista on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:25:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yippie (2.00 / 2)

I'd much rather have the 4th Amendment intact.


by Drummond on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:35:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yippie (none / 0)

Me too. The country can and will fall prey to another J. Edgar Hoover type with something like this. Only much worse and much more insidious. Obama at least understands the significance. There is an unbelievably different tone when he talks about FISA and talks about some other issue where he has "shifted", like guns or the death penalty. He is not happy about FISA. Not one bit. There's something that is forcing his hand on this.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:03:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So we didn't get 100% of what we wanted (none / 0)

At least he acknowledges our position.

That's a greater victory than many can fathom.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:59:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (none / 0)

Obama responding to the netroots only happens because he doesn't want to lose another source
of funding.  He's a politician he's not the Hawaiin Messiah.

He betrayed us with his FISA vote.  When push came to shove...he chose Bush's way over our way.

Bush has gotten everything he wants from the 06 Congress.  

The netroots have responded ...and have
once again become my heroes.  

Don't back down...consider putting donations into
escrow and not releasing them to Bush Dogs or
Senate capitulators.

We should like K Street demanding a return our our investments.


by jd2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:46:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm actually kind of impressed (2.00 / 4)

Obama listened. I'm still not totally happy with his position but I never thought I'd agree with Obama all the time.

I wanted a candidate who I would agree with most of the time and would take my concerns seriously. I think Obama has shown that.


"Live your beliefs and you can turn the world around." --Thoreau
by Populista on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:25:02 PM EST

Exactly (none / 0)

Spoiled children want everything all the time for themselves. We didn't get 100% of what we wanted, but we didn't get 0% either.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:00:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly (2.00 / 1)

wanting the Constitution preserved for EVERYONE is being a 'spoiled child'?


by zerosumgame on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Explain (none / 0)

How the compromise bill violates the 4th Amendment? Did you even read it? In his own words:

The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:53:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Explain (2.00 / 1)

The FISA compromise bill makes the illegal-warrantless wiretapping activities that Bush has initiated...legal!  It gives the Office of the President precedent, and continues to endorse the violation of the 4th ammendment of U.S. citizens when convienient by the President when he, and only he deems it necessary.

The bill creates a new framework from which FISA will work, not the legal and perfectally functional framework that already existed that protected rights and the United States, from the FISA court and the judicial branch to the Office of the President and the executive branch.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:18:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Explain (none / 0)

The FISA compromise bill makes the illegal-warrantless wiretapping activities that Bush has initiated...legal!  It gives the Office of the President precedent, and continues to endorse the violation of the 4th ammendment of U.S. citizens when convienient by the President when he, and only he deems it necessary.

No. It places the past incidents under the purview of the IGs of all agencies involved. If you've ever endured a review by the IG, you'd know that it's no kangaroo court. Those people take their obligations very seriously.

The bill creates a new framework from which FISA will work, not the legal and perfectally functional framework that already existed that protected rights and the United States, from the FISA court and the judicial branch to the Office of the President and the executive branch.

There is no new framework. There's just a few exceptions for special circumstances, along with additional oversight to compensate for it. And none of this takes the power out of the Judicial system. The FISA court still has to approve the warrant requests, and they must approve the exceptions.


by noop on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:05:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 4)

Blah Blah Blah Obama!  Only ignorant idiots will accept this totally unacceptable violation of the Constitution!  There was no urgent need to pass this FISA piece of crap.  The old FISA Act was still in force it was only the laughable legislation passed by the Democratic Congress last August just before recess that was expiring!  Senators are sworn to defend the Constitution just as our troops that fight and die everyday for it, if only they had the same courage as those troops.  Obama is a spineless politician but we're used to voting for spineless Democratic Candidates.


by orionwest on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:28:24 PM EST

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 2)

Clearly he has a spine, or he wouldn't be having this conversation or allowing dissent on his own website. If he had no backbone, he would have capitulated or wavered. He did neither. Media can claim that he is changing his mind all they want, it doesn't make it true.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 1)

He's as spineless as the rest of the Democrats refusing to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for anything.  Senator Obama should reread his sworn oath to defend the Constitution.  I don't give up my rights under the Constitution as easily as you not even one word.


by orionwest on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:43:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 2)

It takes no courage at all to allow a discussion to happen when you know the dissidents have no choice but to support you and you have every intention of completely ignoring the content of the discussion.


Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.
by Endymion on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (1.00 / 2)

In case you don't know, and that does seem likely, this is called a 'pander'. A 'discussion' is a two way thing, you dig.

This is Obama taking a piss and a shit on the Constitution and then whining that there was....

'Nothing I could do....'

We'd be speaking Japanese or German or Russian if previous Democrats were like Obama.

But then he's not a Democrat and neither are all the folks on this thread who are W.O.R.M.ing up a storm for him.

What you folks are are born slaves. Desperate for someone to tell you what to do.

Pathetic.


by Pericles on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:49:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 2)

My sense, and it is only mine, most people seem to be more concerned with punishment rather than restoring FISA so it stays in line with the 4th amendment.

What's more important repairing FISA so as to undo Bush's total disregard for the rule of law or a pound of flesh.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:28:37 PM EST

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 2)

Exactly the point I tried to make in my last diary (which is promptly sliding off the page).  

Once again, I guess my title wasn't imflammatory enough to gain attention.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:44:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 1)

I did read your diary, fogiv. They're always woth reading.
You can't really blame people for wanting a "pound of flesh" out of the current administration, can you?
It's precisely because we did nothing to Reagan and his administration for the Iran Contra affair and other fiascos, that we now are dealing with yet another criminal Republican administration.
I understand Obama's stance on this bill, the man has to be elected, but we don't want a "partisan witch hunt", we want criminals held accountable for their crimes. It's just gone too far.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:07:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (none / 0)

Agree, agree, agree.

Thanks for taking a look.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:17:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One of the worst provisions of the bill (2.00 / 1)

is the pre-emption of State prosecutions of telcos for both past and future surveillance in violation of State laws.




Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012
by benmasel on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (none / 0)

Then again, a pound of flesh will feed my family, and I can stretch it to last a couple days by serving it over noodles.  4th amendment?  Not so much...


by username on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:07:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (none / 0)

LOL


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:21:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can deal with this... (none / 0)

I don't care about penalizing the telecoms.  I care about exposing the current administration and its illegal surveillance of the American people.  As long as the telecoms are compelled to testify about their role in illegal surveillance, I don't care if their "punishment" consists of anything more than embarrassment.


by KTinOhio on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama Responds (2.00 / 3)

This is a pretty insulting response. Granted he responded to online critics, but its a pretty disingenous explanation for a blatant flip flop. Let's not get lost in the overall goal. He is still capitulating and giving lame and frankly insulting answers to his supporters for betraying their trust.


by ajain on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:47:08 PM EST

It's Good to Know (2.00 / 3)

I'm glad Mr. Obama is so sure of victory that doesn't need my support at this point.  Guess I'll go get drunk instead.


Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.
by Endymion on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:20:27 PM EST

He's not sure of victory (2.00 / 1)

be he's sure listening to you, he'd lose in a landslide.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:38:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's not sure of victory (2.00 / 1)

Campaigns are not conflicts of reality, they are conflicts of narrative.  When someone wins an election, it is a triumph of fantasy, not reality; and with that in mind it is pointless for a candidate to concern himself with what positions will 'play well'.  A candidate can take any position, no matter how unpopular, and spin it into a positive with advertising, organization, and media relations.  How else did John McCain get known as a 'maverick'?  Picture this:

Fictional Barack Obama:  Yes, some have advised that concern for security is more important than the Constitution of the United States of America.  But the Constitution is not just some piece of paper.  The Bill of Rights is the most important statement of what it means to be an American.  These are the rights that American men and American women have fought and died for since the inception of our great nation, and I will not dishonor the memory of that sacrifice, a sacrifice that continues this very day, I will not dishonor their sacrifice out of ambition, or cynicism, or fear.

You've heard the man speak.  He can take a stand on any issue and make it sound like a good idea.  Hell, he's got a lot of people here convinced that this capitulation is a good idea.


Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.
by Endymion on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:10:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's not sure of victory (1.66 / 3)

its called trying to win.  This intense desire to die on the the pyre of purity is one of my biggest complaints I have with our side.


by Xris on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:23:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's not sure of victory (none / 0)

>This intense desire to die on the pyre of purity is
one of the biggest complaints I have with our side.<

Xris:

Die on the pyre of purity....it's July 4th...if I recall my history correctly if the framers lost the war Geoge III was going to behead them.  What fools you must think they were.


by jd2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:39:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0)

he was going to hang them. Britain had stopped beheading at that point.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's not sure of victory (