It's SSCI--which stands for Senate Select Committee on Intelligence--and not SCI.

Just trying to avoid potential confusion.

When I called into Harry Reid's office in Washington, I started off calm enough.

Then the lady on the phone interrupted me to insist I was mistaken, that Harry Reid IS NOT FOR telecom immunity.

I asked, are you telling me that what I am reading in Glenn Greenwald's column, dated today, is inaccurate?

And when she answered yes, I told her about Update IV "....just enough Democrats .... voted in favor in order to ensure that the Motion passed while enabling Democrats generally to pretend that they opposed it." -- was she still telling me that was wrong information?

She insisted (slowly and evenly to her credit) that Harry Reid is not going for telecom immunity. I told her, Good! Because as someone in who lives in Las Vegas so help me God if this bill gets through I will do everything in my power to see that Harry Reid loses support here.

Well, I'm not sure that tactic worked. As soon as it was out of my mouth, she started raising her voice - send me that information, and repeated herself yet again that Harry Reid is not for telecom immunity.

I ended by agreeing to fax her the information. Then, my day job interfered and I wasn't able to do that. I will have it ready to go tomorrow morning. Now, I read the Update V.

OK, I may be a little confused ; but I'm not backing off from my original point. I have yet to see Harry "Give Them Hell", since he has really been in a position to do so. This had best be one time that he does.

I mean, not even my Republican friends are for this bill.

Are they truly playing a game over the upcoming State of the Union speech? I do not get it. Hillary, Obama where are you?

I know where Edwards is, that is for sure.

Remember, even though we UTers show an unusualy firm grasp on the one language, we're still Americans, and therefore don't read (several) others. Please provide translations, since as Holly put it so nicely, "you can hear the banjos."

Alas.

We all feel dumb enough today.

Reid's official if confusing and disappointing (and I think dishonest) stance has been for some time that he's against immunity even though he submitted the SSCI version of the FISA bill--that contained immunity--as the base bill. I still don't understand the justification and reason for this, but that's what he's been saying. So technically, the woman was correct.

I started the day with low expectations. However, the biggest disappointment was that my senator - Claire McCaskill - voted to table/kill the Judiciary version of the bill. I don't know if it had to do with AT&T and Sprint presence here in Missouri, or with deference to that dinosaur Kit Bond. Any thoughts from other Missourians?

We really need to put the full court press on McCaskill tomorrow and Monday. I'm hoping it's not too late to convince her to come down on the right side of this issue.

Che, maybe you can peer into the night sky?

Have a dark caramel chewy-milk-coated treat.

Good night. I'm sorry.

Chocolate Milky Way?

Maybe ask Anonymust?

I hope she does not eat,

A 'Snickers' in her bed.

Harry Reid:

"It appears the president and Republicans want failure. They don't want a bill."

- - Harry Reid

Reid and Rockefeller tried to give the GOP what the GOP said they wanted, but the GOP blocked it.

So then -- and only then -- Reid gets mad.

Reid's not mad about the GOP lies and the GOP trashing the nation and the Constitution, just about the GOP lack of Senatorial courtesy and procedural niceties.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's starting to penetrate Reid's skull that the GOP are more concerned with political appearances than with fighting terrorism, and maybe Rove or some Rovian has decided that the president can give a better SOTU speech on Monday if FISA isn't "fixed" yet at that point.

Priorities.

As Swopa suggested tonight at firedoglake, somebody ought to make some 30-second TV spots pointing out that Bush and Cheney and the GOP are more interested in making political hay than in fixing FISA and stopping terrorists.

I don't believe he can have his cake and eat it too.

That doesn't even make sense but it's the first thing to pop into my head. Man I just went for a walk and it has not cleared my head. Yet. Of all the things we've been through, why is this tiny little thing of retroactive immunity for a(nother) corporation getting to me so badly?

Why the subterfuge on Reid's part? Why are the Democrats seeming to once again allow this issue to be FRAMED in the wrong context to the American public?

I'm doing more reading, writing and 'rithmatic on this matter.

"It's times like these

You learn to love again

It's times like these

You give and give again..." Foo Fighters

I look for your posts, in times like these.

Thank you for being here. I feel like I can breathe when I can step back and read you.

Yes, kovie. Reid is against immunity, and I'm sure he says so all the time. I'm sure he even thinks he is doing what he can, just like when they were elected into a majority and unfortunately, for the sake of sensibilities, had to cave utterly to the Bush- administration on absolutely everything.

But no one can use that to excuse Reid for doing something, presumably on purpose, in a somewhat conscious state of mind, that results in the opposite position being put into law.

That merely exposes him as a weak- minded trickster, who has learned to say one thing and do another - while rationalising his actions so they can fit with the pronounced narration.

Pray do not do the same thing, in fear of stating the bleeding obvious.