Obama adviser: Obama naive, “knee-jerk” on telecom immunity

Hot Air ^ | March 08, 2008 | by Ed Morrissey

[jdm]

Barack Obama has resolutely opposed giving American telecommunications companies immunity from lawsuits for their work with the NSA, under Department of Justice assurances of legality, to assist in surveillance. He voted against the bipartisan Senate FISA reform bill that Democratic House leadership has stalled. Now Obama’s national-security advisor has gone public in opposing Obama on the key national security issue:

In a new interview with National Journal magazine, an intelligence adviser to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign broke with his candidate’s position opposing retroactive legal protection for telecommunications companies being sued for cooperating with a dubious U.S. government domestic surveillance program.

“I do believe strongly that [telecoms] should be granted that immunity,” former CIA official John Brennan told National Journal reporter Shane Harris in the interview. “They were told to [cooperate] by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context.”

Disagreement on policy points occur between candidates and their advisers, although open breaks on major issues are somewhat rare. However, Brennan goes farther than just mere disagreement:

That wasn’t just a personal opinion, Brennan made clear to Harris. “My advice, to whoever is coming in [to the White House], is they need to spend some time learning, understanding what’s out there, identifying those key issues,” including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, he said — the law at the heart of the immunity debate.

“They need to make sure they do their homework, and it’s not just going to be knee-jerk responses,” Brennan said of the presidential hopefuls.

Brennan isn’t just some guy who did a couple of years at Langley and then wrote a book. He headed the National Counterterrorism Center, which coordinated efforts between the CIA, FBI, and other law-enforcement and intel agencies. He understands how to conduct counterintelligence and the resources needed for its success.

This statement will underscore the lack of seasoning that Obama would bring to the White House. Obama’s own policy adviser describes Obama’s position as one that lacks understanding and/or ignorant, as well as “knee-jerk”. It also points up another aspect of Obama on telecom immunity: for a man who claims he will forge bipartisan solutions, Obama seems determined to sabotage this bipartisan effort led by the man who endorses him as “brilliant”, Jay Rockefeller.

We can take from this that Obama is a naive, knee-jerk liberal who hasn’t done his homework on counterterrorism. And we apparently can quote the Obama campaign on that.

[CPOSharky]

For whom will the demonrats vote? The socialist or the communist?

And why will either one of them want to be the “leader” who drives the US into turd-world status?

(Yeah, I know, power and personal aggrandizement. Just like every other turd-world dictator.)

[SusaninOhio]

I sure hope McCain’s folks are taking notes - the dems are writing his debate responses for him -

[tsmith130]

Obama’s national-security advisor

He headed the National Counterterrorism Center, which coordinated efforts between the CIA, FBI, and other law-enforcement and intel agencies. He understands how to conduct counterintelligence and the resources needed for its success.

I'm having a wee bit of trouble reconciling these two jobs. He's on Obama's team why?

[em2vn]

We now know why “W” had such a rough ride from the C.I.A..
Of course if he’d had the nuts and bolts to fire people he wouldn’t have had the problem.

[tsmith130]

So true...

[newheart]

[Godwin1]

Obama prefers to please the trial lawyers and appease the terrorists rather than protect innocent Americans and the patriotic business people who have collaborated with the government to protect our country.
No wonder Obama is the terrorists’ preferred candidate. They sense, quite rightly, he is on their side. They've read his book, which suggests America is always in the wrong. They've heard his wife, who hates this country and does not hesitate to say so. They've read the words of his “pastor” and “mentor” who has said America got what it deserved on 911. They've heard him say that he will surrender to Al Quaeda in Iraq. They've herd him say it is wrong to closely scrutinize Muslim visa applicants. How could such a man become a major presidential candidate?

[Dianna]

I'm having a wee bit of trouble reconciling these two jobs. He's on Obama's team why?

So that Obama can "look good" on the issue by pointing to the experience of his advisers.

[mimaw]

But if he the adviser I mean is so concerned about national security why is he a dem?

[Dionysius]

Why? Because he likes him! M-O-U-S-E!

[Dianna]

But if he the adviser I mean is so concerned about national security why is he a dem?

LOL! The minds of democrats are awful murky. Who knows?

[tsmith130]

So that Obama can "look good" on the issue by pointing to the experience of his advisers.

I'm not questioning Obama putting him on his team...I'm questioning Brennan BEING on his team.