Insists corps must have retroactive immunity from prosecution.

Makes him a terrorist in my eyes.

so the reason for preventing immunity is?

ChaChing! Get them lawyers fired up! Won't it be a wonderful day when AT&T and Verizon and BellSouth are sued into the ground?

Talk about terrorism.

Protect the lawbreakers at all cost. Fantastic!

And it has nothing to do with the "lawyers", most of these cases are expensive and done pro-bono. Considering that the goverment is failing to its job of policing itself, its up to private citizens to take up the torch. But I guess for some nothing is too good for "Dear Leader".

Democrats aren't the initiators of this action. Repubs want to grant immunity to people who may have broken the law.

Letting people ignore the law is a good thing? I thought you rightists didn't go for amnesty.

And where the party of "Law & Order". I guess when you get to set the laws the orders are for everyone else but you.

I love one of the points Keith Olbermann (among others, but he's the one I remember hearing it from) has been making about this. Bush insists that if this legislation is not passed, then it will leave us vulnerable to a terrorist attack. If it doesn't come to him with the demanded immunity for the telecoms, however, he will veto it. Meaning, of course, that - to Bush - immunizing the telecoms against potential criminal charges for helping with the illegal wiretapping is MORE IMPORTANT than protecting the country from a potential terrorist attack.