First of all, let me say that I am really truly honored to be a guest blogger on LiberalOasis. Early in 2004, something just seemed rotten. I was living in Tyler, Texas (that wasn't the rotten part). Everyone, I mean, everyone was jazzed about the prospect of George W. Bush being reelected. It seemed as if I was in some Twilight Zone episode. I began to look around and try to find something to read that was liberally biased. One of the first blogs that I found was the LiberalOasis. It was like taking a breath of fresh air after being underwater for too long.

So, what should my first post be about? Mercenary contractors? Condoleezza Rice was on Capitol Hill trying to defend the indefensible. Her argument, which should sound familiar, is that mistakes were made (it is always understood that she didn't make any mistakes) and that they're working to correct those mistakes. Richard Griffin who was the Director of the Diplomatic Security Bureau resigned yesterday. Sound familiar? New rules which are not enforceable are being talked about in Washington. I have a fundamentally larger question, should we have guys with high powered rifles and assault weapons running around a foreign country in the name of the United States? These same men do not seem to be responsible to any government entity. Oh, and another question, when have we ever farmed out some task to a private company and the cost actually decrease? I'm not talking about decreasing for year or two but I'm talking about over the long haul. Whether it is prison systems or road construction work or anything?

No, what I really want talk about is the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The US Congress is looking at this act not for the third or fourth time but yet if I'm not mistaken this the eighth time this law has been amended since 2001. Someone please help me understand why it takes eight times to amend the law. Unless, the administration never asked for exactly what they want. Instead, and I believe this to be fact, the administration comes back and asked for a little bit more every time. They want a little bit more leeway. They want a little less oversight. That is what's going to make us safe. That is the administration's argument. Thankfully, a recent article has highlighted the lies and deception that the Bush administration has perpetrated not just on the American people but also on Congress with regards to this law. Their argument has always been we needed to strengthen FISA in order to fight Al Qaeda. It turns out that domestic spying started both for the attacks on 9/11. This has been part of the neocon agenda. Answer to no one. Do what you want.

Over the last two weeks we've learned that Verizon and several of the other telecom companies have handed over information without a warrant. They have been over backwards to give the Bush administration everything it wants and more. Now, the Bush administration would like to give Verizon, MCI, Qwest and AT&T immunity. At first glance, this is laughable. But Democrats have had a track record of complaining in front of the cameras while quietly capitulating on the floor of the Senate and the House. The Senate Intelligence Committee led by Jay Rockefeller (Democrat -- West Virginia) voted to give the administration and the telecommunications companies their immunity. Why? What are we gotten in return? Late yesterday there appeared to be some deal. Deal? I think I'm going to vomit.

An unlikely hero has emerged during this debate -- presidential candidate Senator Chris Dodd. He vowed to place a Hold on the legislation. It is a tradition of the Senate that any senator can place a Hold on any legislation. This is supposed to promote centrist bills. It has been reported that Senate majority leader Harry Reid may use some procedural maneuvers in order to bypass the Hold. Late last week, Senator Dodd upped the ante. He said that he would filibuster any bill that included immunity for the telecom companies. He was joined by Senator Joe Biden, also a presidential candidate, in this filibuster threat. Senator Obama has also pledge to join the filibuster.

My larger question is why would any Democrat support immunity for companies who, at least on the surface, seem to have broken the law. They seem to have blatantly broken the law.