Here's another back-and-forth exchange that I find interesting. It's about the issue of telecom immunity in the new FISA bill, and about the seeming capitulation of most Democrats (Barack Obama, among them) on this matter. Arguing that it ain't so bad, and isn't a serious reversal on previous stances, we have Keith Olbermann. Arguing that it's just that is Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.
If you'd like to follow this exchange, start by reading Greenwald, then go read Olbermann, then go read Greenwald, then read the observations of Jane Hamsher.
As I score this one, Greenwald's ahead on points, especially in noting the following; that it may not matter if the telecoms are still open to criminal prosecution by a President Obama because an outgoing President Bush can (and I'm guessing, will) pardon them. In fact, I suspect that if Bush is to be succeeded by a Democrat, and maybe even by John McCain, he will spend his last few days in office pardoning everyone who's ever worked for him for everything they've ever done, including stuff we don't yet know about.
The argument for the bill seems to be that it will help Obama in the election not to be attacked as being "soft on terrorism" for opposing any part of FISA. There's some merit to that, though I think Obama could go out and single-handedly arrest and drag Bin Laden in for trial, and Republicans would still be attacking him on that basis. But I sure don't think this new bill is a "compromise." In a compromise, both sides regret losing something. Has anyone seen a single Republican who's unhappy with any aspect of this "bi-partisan compromise?"