“Unfortunately, immunity for communications companies has become a cause celebre for opponents of the surveillance program as a whole, and that has led to widespread confusion.” ~ Jay Rockefeller

Yes, I am confused. How do we ever find out what the administration was actually up to if we give these communications companies immunity?

Isn’t that why this as become “a cause celebre” for those who take lawbreaking seriously?

At no point does Rockefeller support his point that if we don’t give them immunity then “we will forfeit industry as a crucial tool in our national defense.” How?

Which companies have said they will no longer comply with government subpoenas unless they’re given immunity?

Which telecom company says it is above the law and will no longer comply with the law if it doesn’t get immunity?

I didn’t watch the debate last night and I’m just now trying to get caught up, but reading Josh Marshall’s take on it, it seems that for the most part, the Democrats (and the media, of course) are letting neo-cons like Podhoretz set the parameters for this debate.

Once you accept the notion that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon it’s the end of the world, then your options remain almost entirely about when to attack them, not whether to attack them, and talking about a “Middle East Strategy” that involves more than Iran is impossible, because stopping them from getting a nuclear weapon is all that matters.

Our political discourse, in short, starts from the notion that Iran = Hitler and anyone who doesn’t accept that premise finds themselves at a disadvantage. They are immediately in hole that they need to dig out of, and suggesting that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon in a few years, it still won’t be the end of the world, is regarded as “surrender” at best, and insane at the very least.

Josh Marshall makes a very important point here:

”But another point -- diplomacy is a tactic, not a strategy. Our whole strategy is wrong in the region. Leaving more time for the diplomatic phase of the policy just delays getting to where the policy is taking us: full-scale war with Iran.”

The problem facing us is how to inject a bit of reality into this debate. The rest of the world watches in amazement as the U.S. cowers in fear from the possibility that some day Iran just might acquire the knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon. It makes absolutely no sense.

Josh Marshall again (my emphasis):

“The key point, though they've all been afraid to say it, is that allowing Iran to get one or two penny-ante nukes is not the worst thing that can happen for us. It doesn't threaten us. It's not great. It would be a really bad development. But it doesn't justify doing something positively insane that won't really prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon and if we could have this debate honestly isn't even about the Iranian nuclear program. Say it again, fundamentally this is not even about an Iranian bomb.”

How do we get to the point where our political candidates are no longer afraid to say this? When will they look Tim Russert in the eye and tell him that the whole premise of his question is absurd and without foundation in the real world?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/057452.php

When he was attacked, Boylan was wearing blue jeans, a button-front shirt and casual jacket.

That’s from the article linked to by our latest anonymous who, for the purpose of accuracy, I’ll just call “Col. Steve.”

Steve,

It’s time to put the cap on the Jack Daniels and pull away from your computer. Yes, you’ve made an ass out of yourself by your rambling, incoherent e-mail to Glenn, but you really need to get a grip, you’re just making things worse with these anonymous posts.

Nobody here thinks that what happened to you in 2002 has any relevance at all to what you’re doing to the military in 2007. We will not be distracted by this story – it has nothing, absolutely nothing – to do with the issue of our politicized military.

Just stop. Really, you’re just making things worse for yourself.

Sincerely,

Zack