Olbermann (and Others) Construct Rickety Defenses over FISA

by Deb Cupples |  I've been troubled by certain media's use of false (or selective) reporting to shape public opinion ever since Rush Limbaugh and Fox began convinced millions of Americans that President Bush could do no wrong -- and that his supporters should respond with verbal brutality when fellow Americans dared to question the policies of certain politicians.

My concerns intensified when even non-right-wing media failed (or refused) to accurately inform Americans before the Iraq war, thereby helping the Bush Administration falsely sell a costly war that will likely go on for years.

My concerns further intensified as I watched big media personalities abandon journalistic pursuits in favor of acting as unofficial campaign volunteers during this year's primaries. 

Warning flags are flapping again as I watch some media fail to inform the public about the new FISA bill, which includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies that helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on Americans.

Let's revisit the intense railing against FISA and Telecom Amnesty that came from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann a few months ago. It was during one of his "special commentaries," complete with characteristic nostril flaring and saliva spraying .

In short, Mr. Olbermann spent nearly 10 minutes expressing his capital-H Hatred of any politician's use of the FISA bill 1) to expand the executive branch's domestic-spying powers, and 2) to grant retroactive immunity to law-breaking telecom companies.  

Mr. Olbermann called President Bush a liar for trying to use fear to coerce Americans into not resisting the expansion of domestic-spying powers or Telecom Amnesty.  Mr. Olbermann called it "fascism" and even mentioned George Orwell. (See video at end of this post labeled February 14, 2008 or read transcript here)

Now, fast forward to June 20, 2008: the day that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama publicly expressed support for the new FISA bill that would:

1) expand the President's domestic-spying powers, and

2) grant retroactive immunity to law-breaking telecoms.

Sen. Obama did say that he doesn't like the Telecom Amnesty provisions, but he did so after choosing to not use his popularity to fight those provisions.  Instead, Sen. Obama remained silent until after the House passed the new FISA bill that proponents call a "compromise," when in fact the bill would give the White House almost every horrifying thing it had wanted. 

In short, Sen. Obama refrained from speaking out until after his popularity no longer could  influence House democrats to remove Telecom Amnesty provisions from the FISA bill.  At least he got it on the record that he doesn't actually like Telecom Amnesty.

Oddly, Mr. Olbermann's response to Obama's FISA support completely lacked intensity: no huffing, no puffing, no movement whatsoever of the nostrils.  Instead, Mr. Olbermann spoke with the restraint that one would expect from the robot on Lost in Space.

Mr. Olbermann explained that the bill's Telecom Amnesty provisions prohibit civil but not criminal liability. From there, Mr. Olbermann described his speculative hopes about this unfortunate turn of events.  Mr. Olbermann suggests that Sen. Obama has an ace up his sleeve -- a clever plan with an ironic twist. Here goes (paraphrased, not quoted):

Obama will let Telecom Amnesty provisions pass, as written, in Congress. If he's elected president, he'll diligently oversee the FISA activity, to ensure that no one's rights are trampled.  He'll also heroically swoop in and launch criminal prosecutions against the big telecoms. (See video at end of post labeled June 20, 2008.)
 

I'd love to see the arguments proffered by the battalion of telecom lawyers -- and the reasoning of any Republican-appointed judges who are itching for cause to dismiss such prosecutions with prejudice.

Of course, Mr. Olbermann's scenario assumes that Obama -- if elected -- actually would turn against the very telecom companies who had successfully badgered more than 100 of his Democratic colleagues in Congress to pass the new FISA bill.

Even more important, Mr. Olbermann's response doesn't address the possibility that Obama won't get elected.  Even if Sen. Obama could be counted on to judiciously monitor domestic-spying programs -- which is, at this point, a faith-based assumption on Mr. Olbermann's part -- there's a more than minute chance that Obama will not be the next president. 

In other words, under Mr. Olbermann's hopey scenario, Sen. Obama may be gambling with our civil rights and our right to hold the Bush Administration (and its Telecom allies) accountable for numerous past legal violations.

Sadly, MSNBC is not the only media outlet that is spinning the recent capitulation on FISA.  Salon's Glenn Greenwald takes Time magazine to task for using inaccuracies to defend the politicians who passed the FISA bill.  Greenwald begins:

"It's hardly news that Time Magazine's principal function is uncritically to amplify false claims from government officials, but this article by Massimo Calabresi -- entitled "Behind the Compromise on Spying" -- is such a masterpiece in spouting simplistic government propaganda and rank falsehoods that it is revealing on numerous levels.

"The article has only one purpose -- to depict the spying "compromise" as a brilliant and heroic centrist masterstroke by Nancy Pelosi to protect us from Terrorists while simultaneously preserving our liberties -- and it employs one factually false claim after the next to achieve this. Let's just take it piece by piece, beginning with the first passage...."

You can read the rest of Greenwald's piece here, and it's certainly worth reading, because he does a good job of analyzing the inaccuracies, piece by piece, that will soon fill the air waves.  Memeorandum has commentary.

Related Buck Naked Politics Posts

* Domestic Spying & Telecom Amnesty: the Bigger Issues

* Domestic Spying Started Before 9/11, and Money Changed Hands

* Bush & Senate Republicans Protect Telecoms, Soil Privacy Rights

* U.S. Intel Chief Made False Statements re: Domestic Spying

 

Video: February 14, 2008

Video: June 20, 2008

Comments

[Adam]

Watching that segment, it's not as though Olbermann is giving Obama a free pass. He describes his position as "confusing". Your paraphrasing doesn't at all match the overall tone of the discussion. I wouldn't describe it as a hope-fest. It's more of an exploration of what possible options may remain to go after the telecoms, assuming this crappy bill gets passed.

I have my own thoughts on Obama and FISA, which I may post about in the next few days.

[Deb]

Hi Adam,

I hope you do post (even if you disagree with me).

I watched the segment twice. Olbermann DID say it's "confusing": just before launching into charitable speculations about how Obama may have supported Telecom Amnesty with a plan in mind that we progressives would approve of.

Olbermann also fails to state the factual basis for his speculations.

I find it odd that Olbermann could lurch at Hillary's throat over the misconstrued RFK comments or the unquestioned, Drudge-provided info on muslim garb) -- yet now he's being so careful re: Obama's FISA failure, despite Olbermann's passionate distaste for FISA/Amnesty.

Of course, Olbermann might change his tune after the Senate vote, but I doubt it, because I sense that dogs and ponies are being rounded up and groomed by congressional Dems.

My speculations: 1) Obama will make a show of opposing Amnesty provisions and fail; or 2) Obama will make a show of opposing Amnesty provisions and "succeed."

I put "succeed" in quotes, because there are (currently) more powerful senators who can make better efforts at gumming up the Amnesty works (like Leahy, Reid and Specter -- especially if they work in concert).

Bottom line (sans euphemisms): the best way for Obama to have actually fought Telecom Amnesty would have been to publicly speak out against it BEFORE the House voted.

He chose to not do so, and there's no erasing that fact.

[Adam]

There certainly isn't. I *do not* excuse Obama's failure to act here.

If I post, it will not be really an impassioned defense of Obama's actions on FISA. It will be closer to, "why Obama's actions (or inaction) on FISA bother me much more than the other stuff you've complained about over the last several months". I need a decent bit of background to explain that, which is why it probably merits a whole post.

The only open question that impacts whether FISA passes in its current form is whether or not Dodd, Feingold, & company will mount an effort to filibuster. Getting 51 votes to strip immunity is a nonstarter - there's no way senators like Rockefeller or Lieberman are going to support that. On the other hand, getting 41 votes to force the bill back to conference committee is on the outside edge of possibility.

[Deb]

Adam,

I know that YOU DON'T excuse Obama.

I think Olbermann was leaning toward excusing him. :)

[DougEFresh]

While at lunch, I was eating a bean burrito from Taco Bell and reading one of George Orwell's essays on Nationalism. Since I am a slow reader and my lunch was short, I didn't get very far into it, but Orwell's critique of certain elements of the leftist press in the 1940's fit so cleanly into Olbermann's behavior. It is bizarre that Olby quotes Orwell.

Orwell described the villification, the rationalization of ones own side even when it conflicts with itself. He wasn't arguing that this is a trait of just the left, but of any group that is overly self-righteous

[Deb]

Doug,

You make a good point. We saw the excuses between 9/11 and hurricane Katrina (a period when it was unacceptable to publicly criticize our nation's chief politician).

And we're seeing some of that now re: the Democrats' chief politician. Hmmm.