So here's Barack Obama trying to justify his decision not to filibuster or even support a filibuster of telecom immunity. His argument that security trumps suing the telecoms is false in itself, simply giving credence to the Cheney line when no one has offered a shred of evidence that protecting these companies from civil or criminal liability has anything to do with stopping a terrorist attack. In Obama's case the weird part is that he doesn't take money from telecoms. So I really wonder, other than general pandering and bad advice, what he is getting out of this archetypal demonstration of Democratic spinelessness?
I hope it makes more sense to you than it did to me.
Via Glenn Greenwald: