Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

The hell of it is, I have a hard to blaming the telecoms for doing what the fed wanted.
That's a big monster that can kill you in dozens of ways to go up against and as you just saw, they make the rules they'll hang you or save you with.

So breaking the law is ok if the government tells you to do it?

I guess so.

How can I get immunity, I'm sure that there's lots of laws I could find that is beneficial to me to break.

It's just an expression, dude.

Does anyone actually use whitewash anymore?

I was in a unit where the battalion S3 (operations officer) was a Maj. Dye. He was famous for wanting a good appearance put on everthing, especially for IG inspections. It was called Dye-wash.

I was only following orders.

Bush could just pardon the lot of them. This bill is much worse because I think it sets a more substantial precedent for the future.

"Senator Christopher Dodd wrote:

Does the president serve the law, or does the law serve the president? Each insult to our Constitution comes from the same source; each springs from the same mindset; and if we attack this contempt for the law at any point, we will wound it at all points.

He's going to try to filibuster it.

edit:I should link to the entire speech. Basically, he indicts the bush administration for contempt of the constitution, and places the FISA bill in that context.

Last edited by jerwin (2008-06-25 2:39 pm)

More from Greenwald:

Several other Senators besides Dodd have ratcheted up the opposition to this bill in the last couple of days. In addition to Dodd, Sens. Feingold, Boxer, and Wyden all announced they would oppose cloture on the bill. Not insignificantly, Sen. Reid announced not only that he would co-sponsor the Dodd amendment to strip immunity out of the bill, but would also vote against the bill on final passage:

It is a position that puts the Democratic Senate leader at odds with his own party's presumptive presidential nominee, Barack Obama, who also has pledged to fight for the removal of immunity but will vote yes on the final package. . . . That the Senate Majority Leader would willingly take a different stance from his party's presidential nominee is an indication of both the political pressures of the current election as well as the emotional divisiveness of the FISA battle.

Feingold has escalated his rhetoric in opposing the bill, resorting to some distinctly un-Senatorial-like (though plainly accurate and needed) accusations against those who are responsible for this bill:

The Wisconsin Democrat voiced considerable frustration with members of his own party, who, he says, have enabled the sweeping new legislation. "Sen. Dodd and I and Sen. Leahy are going to do everything we can to stop this mistake," Feingold noted, referring to fellow opponents of the bill. "But I'm extremely concerned that not only virtually every Republican . . . but far too many Democrats will vote the wrong way". . . .

    [D]espite containing less than a handful of narrow improvements over the February amendments, the new legislation has much wider support among Democratic leaders. Many of them claim the bill represents a worthy compromise.

    "That's a farce and it's political cover," Feingold said, "Anybody who claims this is an okay bill, I really question if they've even read it."

    "Democrats enabled [this]," Feingold went on. "Some of the rank and file Democrats in the Senate who were elected on this reform platform unfortunately voted with Kit Bond who's just giggling he's so happy with what he got. We caved in."

Link.

Dodd better be figuring out how to cover his ass with the Countrywide mess because trying to divert with this won't cut it.

Farmerkev wrote:

Dodd better be figuring out how to cover his ass with the Countrywide mess because trying to divert with this won't cut it.

Because Politicians are either saints or sinners?

Farmerkev wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Dodd better be figuring out how to cover his ass with the Countrywide mess because trying to divert with this won't cut it.

Because Politicians are either saints or sinners?

Because the chairman of the Senate banking committee that oversees the legislation of that industry getting sweetheart mortgage loans doesn't exactly fit that moral clarity bit now does it.
I was expecting someone here to raise a bit of hell about it but...

Are you proposing that politicians--or anyone, for that matter--should approach every issue with the attitude "Let him without sin cast the first stone"? Perhaps Dodd could be wrong (even grievously so) on some issues and still be right on others?

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Because the chairman of the Senate banking committee that oversees the legislation of that industry getting sweetheart mortgage loans doesn't exactly fit that moral clarity bit now does it.
I was expecting someone here to raise a bit of hell about it but...

What "moral clarity bit?"

The moral clarity bit that the Reps get made fun of for not living up too.
This Countrywide thing is pretty bad and considering the reactions about the Reps and their crooked deals I'd expect the same about a Dem.
Of course if you want to tell me the Dem motto is "we're crooks, deal with it"

Tallgeese wrote:

Maybe you'd like to tell us what Countrywide has to do with Dodd's position on telecom immunity.

I suspect it lacks sincerity.
No, I have no proof, just a distinct lack of trust in someone that has proven themselves untrustworthy.