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.