Hey Brian, you better get off that cell phone. If you think NSA only logs your "international" calls to Osama, ATT has an exciting new offer for you.

Does Obama have any foreign policy advisors left or any left with credibility?

Just like Lincoln...a good president has differing opinions in their midst... this makes me like him even more.

The consensus out there is that the telecomms have the best lawyers out there and they would of demanded in writting a protection of immunity.

The gov gave them these documents (illegaly) and now want to cover this up by giving them immunity via another vehicle so that the illegal protection does not come to light

As soon as a trail starts against the telecomms they will pull out their peace of paper and bush will look bad

Obama is right - the telecoms are guilty and so is Bush. THey deserve to be sued or impeached as the case may be.

I don't really get the 'gotcha' element or tone of this article. No leader should be surrounded by parrots, this would seem to be a good thing, after 7 years of watching Bush suppress any public disagreement from his appointees.

If Obama can be confident enough to have people surround him who are free to express their opinion, I can't see how this in and of itself won't be a refreshing change to the ole politics of misdirection, outright lying and secrecy.

"They were told to [cooperate] by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context."

"In a legal context"... hmmmm. I suppose one can operate illegally "in a legal context". The telecoms were told, by the administration that was making the illegal request, that the illegal request was legal. I guess that's all you need for a "legal context".

I am proud Obama is not giving in to those who want to back-track and protect the telecons who BROKE THE LAW to say nothing of violated our privacy by being good little snitches for the government. This is exactly what a president should do- protect the people's rights at the expense of political expedience.

um, why is this a story, is the President only supposed to have advisors that agree with him? It makes sense to have someone with an opposing opinion so you hear both sides. Of the two positions I'll take the one advocated by the Constitutional professor over the spy.

Being as there are already about a dozen cases on the books with sentenses up to fifteen years hard labor, I wonder how they plan to do away with all of those precidents?

How about the ACLU sueing on behalf of all the decendents and other relitives of those people?

Just one of the many reasons I support Senator Obama

rofl, it's not just that he disagreed with Obama on the issue he

-- implied Obama didn't know what he was talking about: "...need to spend some time learning, understanding what's out there..."

-- implied that Obama was just issueing "knee jerk" responses

Tomorrow do we hear that an Obama advisor has reassured the telecoms not to worry; that Obama is only making these statements against immunity for the yahoos in the cult who will believe anything.

This is the funniest article I have read this week.

Hold the phone, I thought the big dig on Bush is that he was too much of a cowboy to listen to his advisers. But Barrack not listening to his advisers is new and fresh? Do you people listen to yourselves?

I know, I know. You'll all bend over backwards to spin for anyone who tells you what you want to hear.. even if, as in Obama's case, they're busily reassuring the rest of the world that his rhetoric is just a means to the ends of getting gullible rubes to vote for him.

I wonder if Brennan supports embracing terrorists like obama?

I'm sure all of the above people support Obama on whatever position he takes on any subject in any geographic locale on any given day at any given minute.

Hey Obamatrons, if you want "change" from your candidate you've got it: every 15 minutes, like clockwork. But, hey, don't take my word for it, just ask Austan Goolsbee and Samantha Power. They'll give you an earful about "change" and "hope."

I am sure Obama just wants the right to sue Big Telco once the recordings of his incriminating phone calls with Rezko are linked on Drudge, torpedoing his political positioning as a pristine anti-political candidate.

Mr. Brennan heads The Analysis Company (TAC). It's not in TAC's interest to oppose the administration's views. From TAC's website:

"With depth and breadth of experience in the counterterrorism [CT] field, and through the integration of technology and analysis, TAC is able to provide the Government with technology, expertise, and intelligence support that enables CT activities and information sharing and advances the CT mission...

"TAC employees are integrated into intelligence, law enforcement, defense, and homeland security work units, serve in Government operations centers, and play a critical role in watchlisting efforts."

They'd all be out on their ears if Brennan agreed with Obama instead of Bush and Cheney. With such conflict of interest, Brennan should stay out of this. To call opposition to retroactive immunity an uninformed "knee-jerk" response is funny from the guy who supposedly advises Obama in these matters. Sounds like he's peeved because Obama didn't take his "advise."

Just another instance of Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth. Happens all the time. Depends on what gullible audience he is playing to at the time. The Messiah is not the Chosen One after all, he is just another politician.

As for this particular subject, I would think the fact that the Senate supported immunity by a huge bipartisan majority should be an indication to people that they also feel it is the right thing to do.

If the Democrats did not want these companies to have this immunity they should have made an issue of it when it mattered. Instead they were more worried about terrorists than they were Republicans. Now time has passed, there has not been another attack and so Democrats like Obamaa are fear mongering the issue by telling people that Bush is listening in on the private conversations of hundreds of millions of Americans. They have no evidence of anything of the kind. In fact they do not even give any indication as to who such a thing is possible.

They are paranoid and more interested in demonizing Bush than they are in tracking terrorists. After all 9/11 was just an exception to the rule, or maybe even an inside job. right?

Why is the word "dubious" used in line 5? The writer is a journalist, no? Dubious is his opinion, no? Also, why has no one commented on this point?

I like a guy who thinks for himself. Hillary just goes along with the flow. She's bought and paid for laready, so what does she care. Some people better get a clue who Hillary embraces, it's more than terrorists. She has a list a mile long, if not longer.

Gotta love this...

"Mr. Brennan heads The Analysis Company (TAC). It's not in TAC's interest to oppose the administration's views."

Wait! I thought only John McCain & HRC relied on people who have something to gain?

The delusion, naivate and stupidity of these folks is breathtaking.

A modest proposal: No vote unless you 1. Pay more taxes than receive in welfare, and 2. could outwit a hamster in a fair fight.

I bet those of you here who oppose the government gathering intelligence on our enemies will be the first ones in here blaming Mr. Bush if we suffer another attack.

Great point Terrye,

Every Federal court has found the NSA
surveillance program legal.The Democrats were briefed on this program just like
the interrogation programs.But as soon
as it came to life,they had to run around with the "Bush lied","Bush tricked us" routine just like when they voted for the Iraq War.
The main crime associated with the NSA
wiretapping program is that it was revealed on the Front pages of the NYtimes and told our real enemies,the terrorist, how we were tracking them and
enabled them to change tactics.
The head of the CIA,our Attorney General and many other security analyst
have told us how important this program
is in tracking terrorist and stopping attacks. The democrats need to quit playing games with our National Security
and find other ways to fight their pathetic war on Bush.

This is nuts.

The telecoms acted in good faith after 911. The Democrats are playing politics here. $100 says that NOTHING will change in so far as wiretapping in concerned if a Democrat takes the WH. Obama and Clinton will not want another 911 on their watch.

THANKS TO THOSE REPORT FROM THE LIBERAL IN CHARGES...THIS PROCESS OF GATHERING INTEL HAS CREATED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND HAS SET THE INTEL COMMUNITY BEHIND ON THE TERRORIST...IT'S THE SAME OLD BLAME GAME...PRIOR TO 9/11, IF BUSH OR EVEN CLINTON ACTED ON DETENTION OF ARABS COMING IN THE U.S. SOIL THE SAME LIBERALS WILL CRYING FOUL PLAY AND NOW IT HAPPENS THEY STILL FOUL PLAY...IT GOES THE SAME HERE IF BUSH CONTINUES TO AUTHORIZE THE TELECOM TO MONITER FOREIGN CALLS OR STOPS IT AND THAN SOMETHING HAPPENS LIKE BIGGER THAN 9/11....WHO GET BLAME FOR IT...YEAH BUSH....YOU PEOPLE ARE WORST THAN THOSE TERRORIST....

Looks like most of this is speculation (as usual).

If they want it, it will become law. There will be nothing you can do about it. Period.

Ask yourself the question:
Do want to have the NSA, FBI or any other federal agency wire-tapping you?
For any reason?

Be truthful, don't spout, on't elaborate, just answer the question simply.

Obama can do anything and Americans will still be taken by his hope and change themes. Sadly, all Americans may have to pay the price of ignorance of the majority. Sen. Barack Obama is not only inexperience but he lacks KNOWLEDGE in so many areas that one has to wonder why Americans can not pick a better candidate.

What a remarkable instant - a politician who does not get flustered when his opinions are not treated as if spoken from God.

I can understand relieving telecoms from liablities in the past--but not from this point forward.

The FISA act allows up to 72 hours before a warrant needs to be obtained. If the government can't come up with a resonable explanation for the issuing of the warrant before that date--maybe the government wants to fish first and then looks for the warrent.

A lot of fish--very few true catches--the government probably knows more about me than I do.

Let's keep things on the up and up. Just my thoughts--break the law, pay the price.

Check out Obama's voting record in US Senate, it's an eye opener.

Those in the Democratic Party so eager to deny Hillary the Presidency, hurriedly skipped over rational logic and backed a hyped up unvetted cute guy with a gift of gab!

They wanted 'change!' Well, they got 'change.! That decision has successfully divided the party like never before!


An FDR Democrat....

Will Obama ensure the DOJ prosecutes the phone companies that illegally spied on us?

If he won't pursue it, he's useless.