Keith Olbermann, Glenn Greenwald Feud Over FISA

A war of words has broken out between two of the progressive blogosphere's most beloved figures: MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and blogger/author Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com.

In a post yesterday, Greenwald charged that Olbermann's "blind devotion to Barack Obama" had let him to excuse and defend Obama's support of the FISA 'compromise' legislation. Greenwald noted that Olbermann has previously condemned the idea of giving immunity to telecom companies that spied on Americans, calling it a "shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism" and comparing it to the actions of the Third Reich.

"But," Greenwald wrote, "[n]ow that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed."

Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek's Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama's support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn't a syllable uttered about "immunizing corporate criminals" or "textbook examples of Fascism" or the Third Reich. There wasn't a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama's bravery and strength -- as evidenced by his "standing up to the left" in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise. [...]

Grave warning on Olbermann's show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution.

There's much more -- you can read Greenwald's full post here. And Olbermann responded with a post last night on Daily Kos.

He explained his segment by citing former Nixon aide (and frequent Countdown guest) John Dean's argument that the FISA compromise "clearly did not preclude future criminal prosecution of the telecoms - it only stopped civil suits." (He added, "I think John Dean is worth 25 Glenn Greenwalds (maybe 26 Keith Olbermanns)."

More Olbermann:

Thus, as I phrased it on the air tonight, obviously Obama kicked the left in the teeth by supporting the bill. But anybody who got as hot about this as I did would prefer to see a President Obama prosecuting the telecoms criminally, instead of seeing a Senator Obama engender more "soft on terror" crap by casting a token vote in favor of civil litigation that isn't going to pass since so many other Democrats caved anyway.

When Markos was on (Monday? Again, blurs) he made the simple but essential point that if this is Obama's rationale for this, maybe he should explain it. I think it can be argued that if he's caught the same hole in the bill that Dean has, his best course is actually to shut up and take the criticism and hope the Republicans don't see the loophole.

I don't know much about Mr. Greenwald and I didn't read his full piece, but I do know that the snippet he's taken out of the transcript of my conversation with Jon Alter last night makes it sound like I was saying defying the left was a good thing. I was actually contrasting it to not cowering to the Republicans, simply as a different thing.

I do think Mr. Greenwald's suggestion of some kind of betrayal on my part is simplistic and childish. I'll take the Dean interpretation of this. If it isn't the Senator's game plan, he'll catch hell from me about it later.

Quick Poll

Who's right?

Glenn Greenwald

Keith Olbermann

Comments

[pmorlan]

Wow. I'm really surprised to see that even on a very friendly site for Obama like HuffPo that the vote is split between Greenwald and keith. This gives me great hope. I'm very happy to see so many Obama supporters vote for Greenwald because it means you took Obama's words to heart when he said:

I'm asking you to believe - not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in YOURS....Barack Obama

Those of you who voted with Greenwald are demonstrating that you believe in your own power to bring about change in Washington and that you are not just going to sit back and let your leaders do it for you. Congratulations to all of you! Those of you who voted for Keith on this are unfortunately still stuck in the old mindset that says you have to follow your leader no matter what. Obama doesn't believe that so why do you?

[Rjmartinelli]

I'm sorry, but I think you're jumping to some pretty massive conclusions. Label tossing doesn't really help either. Having read Keith's explaination of his point of view, I can say it actually makes a lot of sense. If you haven't yet, I suggest you do so.

And remember, always keep an open mind. :)

[NTO08]

There is no jusitifcation whatsoever for supporting the FISA bill...EVER!

[Mattie]

who hasn't Olbermann feuded with!

[RiseHillary]

Bill-o is still winning the ratings game........except that once when Bill-o was on vacation, and someone filled in for him.

Wishful thinking KO!

[Titonwan]

pssssst! uhmm, I hate to break it to you like this, but what does that say about America- except there's a LOT of mouth breathers out there... you sound like one of them :) :O :| :(

[obamanation31]

I love Keith. He's usually right on the money. But not everything is black and white.
But it's always great to discuss things.

[pmorlan]

I think that once Keith reads the entire two posts that Glenn wrote that even he will admit that Greenwald is right on this one. Keith is a man of integrity and I full expect him to admit that he was wrong.

[pbfishtaco]

If Olbermann's wrong on this one, sadly, it's a black mark for this country. He also would be the first to admit it.

[kevenseven]

Olber is wrong.

Read Greenwald's post of today.

[Ramirez]

Olbermann will never admit to being wrong. On anything.

[eztempo]

This Congress must defer FISA til next January 21st. There's no real 'national security' threat to using the existing FISA statute according to most knowledgeable people that aren't flogging a partisan position in November. So what's the damn hurry? Might as well until the Obama Administration can propose its "better version" next year.

[naschkatze]

Absolutely! I fault Reid and Pelosi for letting it get to this point.

[NTO08]

It never even needed to be brought up.

[Titonwan]

AND let the war crimes trials begin! You put the Telcos under oath, they'll drop Bush/Cheney like a hot potato. Yes.

[Gatormouth]

I started out this primary season as an Edwards supporter. When he dropped, I gravitated to Obama. For me Hilliary was too associated with the Clinton run-as-a-p­rogressive­, rule-as-a neoliberal corporatist. In other words, in my view, a "friendly fascist". But understand, I would have fully supported her candidacy, should she have been selected, rather than cede the election to a not-so-friendly fascist candidate from the debris of the Bush administration. These people have proved themselves to be both mean spirited and incompetent.

Obama is o.k., but he is not perfect. But the "perfect" has been called the enemy of the possible. Politics has also been described as "the science of the possible" and Obama is a politician. His election will likely lead to stopping our nation's further slide into a Fascist police state, and for anyone who claims to be a Democratic Party supporter to attempt to erode his chances for election out some kind of idea of his failing their own image of intellectual perfection is self destructive. He must be pragmatic to become elected. I am sure he realizes that any candidate who could be elected would be the result of many compromises. So, this is the best shot we have got to save our country - don't screw it up out of pique. It would be nice if Edwards were to be named his A.G selection, though.

[rhx056]

I feel compelled to say this up front: I am not a staunch Obama supporter, was not a Hillary supporter, and detest the Republicans. Bob Barr is just plain scary. Having said all that...

I know this is probably expecting too much, but did anyone actually UNDERSTAND what Obama said? I was disappointed like so many others in his slippery public response to the FISA bill, some of which did not even make sense to me -- like the part about "restoring" FISA oversight, which had never been revoked in the first place. But he did say he would fight to strip immunity from the bill. There's not much more he can do at this point, folks.

Pelosi and the House Dems have betrayed Americans with this bill, and those Dems in the Senate that would stand against this bill simply do not number enough, so this is all moot and we are all screwed.

[NTO08]

He could vote to oppose it, like Bernie Sanders, Chris Dodd, and Russ Feingold have...doesn't take much but the power to say no to the corporatists handing Obama and the Dems campaign cash.

[RiseHillary]

Now what was that in his rallies, he was going to get the corporate influence out of DC and be a new kind of politician?

#1 on today's hit parade is: MMMMy GGGGGGGGGeneration

[GeorgeKaplan]

Aside from voting against it there is nothing O can do.

[racom]

Except make the 17 who voted against cloture become 18!

[anelder]

Noting the poll taken, a split down the middle as to who is right.
Tells me a lot - we still have too many people who want it "my way or the highway". No Compromist. No reaching out to the other guy. No checking out what the bill really means for the probable future. And above all willing to go to the death - and let the adminsiration continue without any kind of FISA - rather than give one inch. Sounds like the radical right all over again - just a change of name to the crazy lefts.

[Henk]

Funny, I get a completely different read from that poll. I suspect that its more of popularity contest. I doubt that many here have been reading what Greenwald has had to say about all this. Have you read all his posts? Keith has a Tee Vee show so its much easier to follow him and he has much greater exposure than does Glenn. That said, to me this poll shows that even with his larger audience Keith is just barely getting support here.

In one of his posts Glenn says that a compromise either makes both sides angry or happy. If you look at this "compromise" it has made the Wing-Nuts extemely happy. Roy Blunt was out the very next day crowing about the lawsuits being dead, GeeDubya said he'd sign it, the wing-nut blosphere was down right giddy, but on the left not so much. So tell me what kind of compromise make one side very happy and pisses the other side off?

Compromise to a Republican means I get all that I want, in this case more, any you get table scraps.

Finally to call those that see this a a breech of the 4th amendment, a get out of jail free card for law breaking Tel Coms and with that a great big coverup for George Bush, crazy lefts is sounding kind of wing-nutty to me.

[Titonwan]

wah..."com­promist"?? is that a new styling gel? You've been around dubya too long. Yeah, I'm a no "compromist... better than a slimy apologist. (that IS a word, sparky :)

[Rjmartinelli]

You know, there's enough people here trying to turn this into a Red vs Blue scorecard argument that I felt compelled to comment on this again.

Honestly, I read Keith's response and I don't think he's taken this as personally as some of the readers here. If you read his explaination for his position it does make sense. Heck, he's even vowed to give Sen Obama hell over it later if he doesn't end up pushing for criminal charges at a later date.

Here's the thing. This is politics people. This is the nature of the game. At this point Sen Obama cannot afford to give the GOP a brick to toss back at him. Not over a bill that will be passed either way. Playing smart is also picking your battles. Obama can't do anything if he doesn't get elected.

[brakmaster]

But isn't that the same as giving Clinton or Kerry hell over their Iraq War vote at a later date? At that point the criticism is worthless.

The American people are tuning out when the Republicans accuse somebody of being "soft on terror". Frankly, that's becoming a punchline. If Obama is trying to out-maneuver those type of accusations, then he is playing their game on their terms.

Oh well. I guess it's alright if we're willing to be upset about this TWENTY MONTHS after the fact.

[Rjmartinelli]

Brak, I'm curious as to why you are comparing this to giving Clinton and Kerry flak over voting for the Iraq war. I'm having a hard time seeing the logical connection between this topic and that one.

In this case, if John Dean is correct and this bill (in its current sloppily written form) would only offer telecom companies protection against CIVIL suits, this could actually be seen as a fine strategic opportunity.

Pass the bill, restore FISA, but on a face of not being "soft on terror" (God, it makes me sick even writing that phrase), but once he's in office he could have his Attorney General go after them for the CRIMINAL charges.

It's the criminal charges that are important, not the civil suits. I want to see these guys go down for breaking the law.

[Grulg]

Ahhhh yes, the Keith Obama-mann side of his persona has showed-AGAIN. Nice going Keithey. Wayy to not be a hypocrite, Keithey. Way to flip on a flop and then some because Your Guy Lord Prince Obama did the Proper Bill Clinton 'Arkansas Contortioner' move and Changed His Mind. Nice. If McCain or Hillary had done that-you KNOW what kinda frothing at the mouth and purpled prose this guy would have been spewing, and then some.

[NTO08]

Right you are...Obama is just doing what Washington politicians always do...nothing different. And certainly not emblematic of "change".

[generaldelivery]

This is Obama's equivalent of Hillary Clinton's Iraq war vote.
This is the example of Old Politics for political expediency.
This is Obama taking the same position that he attacked Hillary Clinton for taking.

[JohnTalbutt]

Don't let your hostility to Obama destroy your perspective.

[GeorgeKaplan]

Yeah, but we are still voting for O, right?

[clearthinker2008]

Oh, and you all keep talking about how much Keith loves O. His show is the only show that says anything positive about O. So do you want him to start pounding O every night like every other show? You all are going to get Mc Cain and deserve it.

[realwoman]

Two well to do, white, jewish American men, educated, defending the "rights" of people who in a split second, if able to, would take the eyes out of their heads. Only in America!!!!!!

[tyruler]

LoL. You are just too funny. If by defending the "rights of people who would take the eyes out" you mean those big fat scary Muslims, does not imply vitriolic hate, I don't know what does?

Firstly, they are defending the rights of all Americans. Secondly Glenn (don't know about KeithO) are defening the rule of law. Not just any law but the greatest law of the land, the Constitution that you are supposed to uphold and defend with your freaking life!

Thirdly as a Muslim, you'd offend me by saying people like me are parasitic violent-thugs who'd would want to poke the eyes out of Glenn and Keitho but ... I'm sorry knowing how ignorant the war-loving, Israeli-pandering, and irrational the neocn-right can be, I take that as reflective of your symptom of being a Republican in 2008 America.

[MrsPeel]

realwoman,

If I read you right, Olbermann is not Jewish. Never has been. A little confusion as to whether he was raised Lutheran or Unitarian.

From what I can tell, I think it's fair to say he is now secular.

[Titonwan]

realnutty would be a better acumen.

[Weeza]

I have no faith in Keith anymore and hardly ever watch his show. I am a registered Democrat and will support any nominee of the party. But he really alienated me by all the Hillary bashing If Hillary took the same position on FISA as Obama did Keith would have been all over her. I am a fan no more

[Jaybot]

Jonathan Alter's only point in that piece was how good and necessary it was that Obama defy the 'left wing'. Olbermann did not question Alter's assertions in the least. Does anyone believe that Obama plans to push for criminal prosecution of the Telecom's? If they do, then maybe Obamania really is more of a cult than following.

[TrueThis]

As an American, I would like to know that the government is trying to protect this country at all cost. If it means to listen to terroist who might be planning to attack us again, yes, we need telecommunication for that purpose only. We need to know something before it could happen again. Greenwald is being very pity. They try to make Obama have these high standards by ditating their views because he's the first African-American elected nominee, if it was someone elses, "they" meaning KOS and others wouldn't be saying as much. But as Obama said that he would make sure that someone is overlooking the lookers--so we need to do something. I don't like it either but what if we found something exclusive just by listening in on their plans to attack this country. No one cares what Greenwald or others doing in their personal life, it about this country.

Obama can't please everyone but he has a responsiblity to protect this country if he's the next president.

[GeorgeKaplan]

That's what Bush said.

[Liberal2]

Duh? "...As an American, I would like to know that the government is trying to protect this country at all cost...." WELL!

Ya know, yer right, froggy. I too am hoping the government protects us at any cost....even if that cost involves you, Gitmo, and a bucket of water.

Butcha know, before you start trying to breathe water, tell me why the federal government needed to wiretap those terrorist luv'in Quakers?

[MrsPeel]

You are rude. Duh.