Yo Glen Greenwald! You Were Wrong. Time To Apologize and Retract

[Median Democrat]

I posted before that Greenwald's piece was poorly sourced and based on speculation and opinion. Yet, some DUers happily spam the article despite its obvious holes to attack the Obama administration. Well, here's Chris Dodd:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/aig.bonuses.congress/index.html

The real issue being ignored, of course, is whether the alleged retroactive legislation was legal. As noted by Dodd, there is a real issue of whether you can by statute abrogate private contracts.

So much for Grenwald's conspiracy theory that Dodd was being falsely smeared.

[Clio the Leo]

1. WHY can I ONLY rec this ONCE!!!

I'm gonna keep clicking that little button until it lets me do it again! :)

[Median Democrat]

3. Thanks! Just Goes To Show Its Non-Troversey - A False Whodunnit

Glen Greenwald should apologize for creating these lies.

[firedupdem]

2. Thank You! rec'd n//t

[Fresh_Start]

4. I was wondering the same thing

now if we forced the company into bankruptcy, the bonuses might be able to be pulled back into the pool of assets to be adjudicated
I'm kind of expecting the ordinary workers to get screwed out of something because their pay is delayed while the Execs get their money right now

[ClarkUSA]

5. Unnamed sources, axe-grinders & a grandstanding blogger strike again. Also, Dodd lied.

Funny how the people who are always the first to post anti-Obama rumors and crapola are the ones who never supported him
in the first place. GDP has become a freakshow of PUMA/Freeper sockpuppets posting any anti-Obama story they find to stir up
shit like this.

[Bold Sea Captain]

10. Freepumas?!?

sort of like the Uruk Hai...

You can't make the perfect Troll, they just get uglier.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Actually, it's firedoglake who would be your primary target.

[ClarkUSA]

8. She's a bitter axe-grinding PUMA who never misses a chance to trash President Obama.

[camera obscura]

54. The same Jane Hamsher who exposed PUMAs to be psychos like Harriet Christian? Huh.

[ClarkUSA]

57. Link, proof? To my knowledge, a viral YouTube video did that... along with Jon Stewart and DKos

[camera obscura]

65. That video came from FDL originally. You can see their logo on it. Here's the original:

http://firedoglake.com/2008/05/31/clinton-supporter-ejected-from-meeting-mccain-will-be-our-next-president/
http://firedoglake.com/2008/06/01/harriet-christian-youtube-phemonemon-rorshach-test/

the original video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

[Hissyspit]

56. ???

[Louis-Emmanuel]

7. Huh? The link proves Greenwald was right

[Uzybone]

9. How are you still here?

the link clearly says Dodd admitted to removing the provision, contradicting Greenwald the hack.

[ClarkUSA]

13. Mods, are you paying attention to Uzybone's question???

[Median Democrat]

14. Greenwald's Alleged Defense Of Dodd Made Dodd Look Worse

Dodd had a reasonable explanation for not trying to make legislation retroactive. However, Greenwald's fictional account paints a false conspiracy to falsely blame Dodd. It was a bullshit controversy generated by Greenwald that is completely false. Dodd admitted to putting in the amendment, contradicting Greenwald.

[Bolo Boffin]

51. Let's be fair

People were trying to defend Dodd by a viral message sweeping through the right wing. That's what I was trying to do.

Neither Dodd or the White House come out of this looking very well. Greenwald shows that a senior adminstration official hung Dodd out to dry in the New York Times, conveniently leaving out Treasury's making Dodd knuckle under to add the February 11 language. That's what raised his and my ire. Now Dodd is caught saying one thing yesterday and another thing today, and Treasury's not smelling much better.

It was not a bullshit conspiracy and it is not completely false. Yes, Dodd changed the language, but Treasury forced him to do it, and then somebody in the White House tried to knife Dodd as a sacrificial lamb.

[firedupdem]

21. okay, I've been gone most of the day...I just knew this one was gone. n/t

[girl gone mad]

11. Still sounds like he's saying Treasury (Geithner) pushed him to do it.

Dodd, a Democrat, told CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer that Obama administration officials pushed for the language to an amendment designed to limit bonuses and "golden parachutes" at those companies.

"The administration had expressed reservations," Dodd said. "They asked for modifications. The alternative was losing the amendment entirely."

Dodd's not the solution, but he isn't the entire problem, either.

[Median Democrat]

17. Misses The Point - Obama did push for provisions limiting exec compensation

Dodd Does Have An Explanation and it misses the bigger point that Obama DID push for language limiting executive compensation. The debate is over how far reaching or retroactive it should have been. This is a reasonanble debate. Not a whodunnit.

[Uzybone]

12. I'm eating crow too

I didn't believe Greenwalds lies that Team Obama was setting up Dodd, but I also didn't believe Dodd removed the provision from the bill. Whether or not he did it based on pressure from treasury, he still did it.

[Bolo Boffin]

52. He didn't remove a provision -- he added language exempting bonuses contracted before Feb 11

And he did do it at the behest of the Treasury and somebody (the source of the New York Times Saturday article) did try to pin it all on Dodd.

[EFerrari]

15. Do you seriously believe that Dodd could have done this on his own?

Because I have a large inventory of bridges you might be interested in.

[Captain Hilts]

41. Exactly. Snowe and Dodd said the Admin wanted it. nt

[polichick]

16. Well, SOMEBODY from Treasury pressured Dodd - maybe...

...we'll find out who tomorrow ~ isn't Geithner appearing before Congress?

[Median Democrat]

19. Remember When Republicans Were Opposing Obama's Efforts To Limit Exec Compensation?

Now, after the fact, we are saying that Obama should have gone further. This so-called controversy ignores the fact that Obama did push for such limits. The debate is over how severe the limitations should have been, and whether they be made retroactive. Here is the link:

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5301070/obama-imposes-500000dollar-bailout-salary-cap/

Now, the Republicans are reversing field and saying they want more stringent limits, and would have voted for retroactive abrogation of salary contracts? Please.

[polichick]

20. imo what's important to know now is WHO did what and WHY...

We know Dodd was pressured by a nameless person at Treasury, but still nothing on who stripped the Snowe-Wyden Amendment.

I trust that Obama's intentions were honorable ~ but I'm not sure that his econ. team is serving him well. Some members may be too much a part of Wall Street culture to be effective agents of change.

[depakid]

18. delete

[Jennicut]

22. Does any of this really matter anyways? Obama said in his speech just now at the rally in CA

that he is ultimately responsible. Only the media and certain bloggers want to make this an issue.

[Median Democrat]

23. Agree, Two Issues: (1) Greenwald Making Up Fiction, (2) People Spamming This Fiction

This is a discussion board. I can understand it appearing in Latest Breaking News. I can understand it being discussed in just a few threads. However, we are getting the Greenwald article spammed without comment as the god given truth by so called Democrats. The only purpose of spamming the article is to make Dodd and Obama look bad. Well, Dodd just admitted that he was responsible for stipping the language contradicting Greenwald, so lets move on.

Yet, some freepers don't understand that they've been beaten. They don't understand that they have been exposed. Thus, they still try to stir up a whodunnit controversy re-hashing Greenwald's discreditted opinion.

[bvar22]

31. Does Obama run his administration?

Todays statements raise more questions than answers.

*Who, if anyone, "pressured" Dodd to change the ammendment?

*Was he (she/they) operating behind Obama's back, or with his private sanction?

*If Dodd was NOT at the committee meeting, then someone else doctored the bill in committee. Who?


I'm not near ready to just blame the bloggers and move on.

[Bolo Boffin]

53. I'm really not understanding the Greenwald hatred here

What the fuck?

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. Greenwald supported HRC.

The average DU'er reacts toward Greenwald/Krugman/Clinton the way the average southerner reacts toward General Sherman.

Old history? Yeah, but irrational hatred is just that.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Hella old history, since Clinton is now part of Team Obama.

One of the most important parts, too.

I was an Obama supporter, though, and I was horrified by this story, too. Knowing almost all the facts now (we still don't know who in the White House was pushing Dodd's name and omitting Treasury's part in the affair), I'm still disappointed with the political games here. And as Greenwald's post today points out, the greater sin today are the Republicans bashing Dodd and waxing hysterical about the AIG bonus payments when they were the ones standing in the way of any executive compensation limits whatsoever.

Sore loserdom is bad, but sore winnerdom is kind of silly.

[TacticalPeek]

24. Yo - Dodd and your CNN link support Greenwald almost word for word.

Dodd, a Democrat, told CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer that Obama administration officials pushed for the language to an amendment designed to limit bonuses and "golden parachutes" at those companies.

"The administration had expressed reservations," Dodd said. "They asked for modifications. The alternative was losing the amendment entirely."

...

"I agreed reluctantly," Dodd said. "I was changing the amendment because others were insistent."

That is practically exactly what Greenwald said.

What would you say Greenwald got wrong and where at the CNN link is the evidence?

[jeanmarc]

25. Dodd is complicit

They eventually agreed, both Dodd and the administration, so each should take their lumps.

[TacticalPeek]

26. Yes complicit, but only in doing the admin's bidding in this matter against his own better judgement

BLITZER: What I hear you saying is that, you personally, you did this in order -- at the request of officials at the Treasury Department, Timothy Geithner, among others.

DODD: Well, I didn't say who it was. But just say this, I wouldn't have modified my own amendment at my own insistence. I mean, I spent a long time to having people try to be -- change it. And obviously they came. And the alternative was losing the amendment. And I didn't think we should do that at all.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/who_asked_dodd_to_defang_bonus_provision.php

In fact, what he is saying is that Unnamed Treasury Official was willing to kill the compensation limits amendment completely.

That's whack.

[Median Democrat]

29. The article you link refers to a "staff level" treasury employee

So, a staff level treasury employee brow beat Senator Dodd. Also, Geithner has no deputies, so it is not anyone who has been appointed by the Senate. In other words, this effort to manufacture a dispute is all just B.S. A distraction. Senator Dodd made the change. Fine. Move on. Greenwald is wrong.

/snip

DODD: Well, they were people, obviously, coming and negotiating with the staffs back and forth. And I don't know their names specifically, it was at a staff level, people were talking about it.

BLITZER: So it -- but it wasn't just your members of your own staff at the Senate Banking Committee who did this, you personally knew about it at the time, is that right?

DODD: No, I didn't know the exact details. I knew they were coming with modifications to it, and whether or not we'd accept some.

/snip

Compare Dodd's remarks with Obama's "the Buck stops with me" and Greenwald's attempts to run interference for Dodd.

[Phx_Dem]

47. Dodd's a big wienie if he let a "staff-level" person at Treasury

brow beat him into doing something he didn't want to do. And he is the one who said it was a "staff-level" person. He's a U.S Senator for Christ's sake. Grow a pair, dude.

I think it's important to note that Dodd said the Administration supported wording limiting bonuses, compensation, but afterwards had "reservations" and the alternative would mean stripping it out completely. That could well mean they had "reservations" about the wording, meaning it may not have had legal standing. Dodd conveniently doesn't indicate what reservations they had or why, nor does he explain why the alternative would be stipping it out completely. If he has explained, I've missed it.

For me this is turning into a bullshit distraction. WHo did what, when, how and where? Nothing was illegal or criminal, and we know that Congress has put strong limits on other bailout packages (remember Wells Fargo's Kovacevich bitching about all the regulations and controls from the gov?).

We're getting the money back -- one way or another, Obama has taken responsibility. I'm done with this MSM/GOP-fueled witchunt.

[asphalt.jungle]

30. How can a Treasury official kill an amendment?

an unknown treasury official can impress upon Dodd to make the necessary compromises to get the bill passed, but they can't actually kill the bill. He's the lawmaker.

[Median Democrat]

32. Not even a Senate confirmed appointee - According to Dodd himself, it was "staff level"

Again, Greenwald is getting killed by Dodd's own comments.

[asphalt.jungle]

42. yeah what Dodd needs to do

is reveal which senator in his committee was holding up the amendment that resulted in Dodd being told to do what is necessary to get the bill passed. it is important to know which senator was holding everyone hostage and needed this particular cutoff date and why. an administration asking lawmakers to get a bill on their desk as soon as possible isn't unique.

[Median Democrat]

28. You Have A Strange Interpretation of Word for Word

Here is Greenwald:

/snip

That is simply not what happened. What actually happened is the opposite. It was Dodd who did everything possible -- including writing and advocating for an amendment -- which would have applied the limitations on executive compensation to all bailout-receiving firms, including AIG, and applied it to all future bonus payments without regard to when those payments were promised. But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd's proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed. The exemption for already existing compensation agreements -- the exact provision that is now protecting the AIG bonus payments -- was inserted at the White House's insistence and over Dodd's objections.

/snip

You quote a portion where Dodd says, "I agreed reluctantly."

I dunno. I see a fundamental difference between "over Dodd's objections" and "agreed."

[druidity33]

33. um

did you read Glenn's whole piece? Including updates? Cuz there's this:

I'm receiving email regarding the remarks Dodd made today on CNN in which he stated that, at the White House's insistence and over his objections, he agreed to include the pre-February, 2009 carve-out in the stimulus bill. Some of these emailers have suggested that Dodd's comments are at odds with what I wrote. They quite plainly are not.

The narrative I wrote here (and which Hamsher wrote in her post) both included exactly that sequence:

That was the exact provision that Geithner and Summers demanded and that Dodd opposed. And even after Dodd finally gave in to Treasury's demands, he continued to support an amendment from Ron Wyden and Olympia Snowe to impose fines on bailout-receiving companies which paid executive bonuses."

I explicitly wrote that it was Dodd who, after arguing vehemently against this provision, ultimately agreed to its inclusion. And the statement from Dodd's office that I quoted above included the same series of events ("Because of negotiations with the Treasury Department and the bill Conferees, several modifications were made, including adding the exemption"). That's exactly what Dodd said today on CNN.

The point was -- and is -- that Dodd was pressured to put that carve-out in at the insistence of Treasury officials (whose opposition meant that Dodd's choices were the limited compensation restriction favored by Geithner/Summers or no limits at all), and Dodd did so only after arguing in public against it. To blame Dodd for provisions that the White House demanded is dishonest in the extreme, and what Dodd said today on CNN about the White House's advocacy of this provision confirms, not contradicts, what I wrote.

[BlooInBloo]

35. Greenwald's remarks are up - say the obvious - that this OP is stupid.

[TayTay]

36. The OP was wrong. Time to apologize and retract.

That would be the fair thing to do.

[Median Democrat]

37. ROFL! Greenwald Says He Is Not Wrong By "Updating" His Story

Again, here is Greenwald:

/snip

That is simply not what happened. What actually happened is the opposite. It was Dodd who did everything possible -- including writing and advocating for an amendment -- which would have applied the limitations on executive compensation to all bailout-receiving firms, including AIG, and applied it to all future bonus payments without regard to when those payments were promised. But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd's proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed. The exemption for already existing compensation agreements -- the exact provision that is now protecting the AIG bonus payments -- was inserted at the White House's insistence and over Dodd's objections.

/snip

On CNN, Dodd says, "I agreed reluctantly."

I dunno. I see a fundamental difference between "over Dodd's objections" and "agreed." Two different things. The fact that Greenwald is amending his story to fit Dodd's new statements does not make the OP wrong.

[TayTay]

43. I don't see that difference

and I think that the Admin should walk this one back. Dodd was one of the good guys on this and agreed to include the restrictions in the original legislation. Treasury wanted it out. That does not negate the good work Dodd did, it means political pressure was applied from Treasury to get it out of the bill and in the interests of passing the bill, he took it out. (He was a good soldier for Obama.)

What part of this makes Dodd a bad guy? That makes no sense at all.

[Cowpunk]

27. Bullshit!

From the article to which you linked:

"The administration had expressed reservations," Dodd said. "They asked for modifications. The alternative was losing the amendment entirely."

In other words, the White House told him to add the grandfather clause or else.

Dodd is not totally blameless, of course. He caved then and he's caving now.

[BlooInBloo]

34. Better: Greenwald's response is up....

OPs like this one are shown to be idiotic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8270955&mesg_id=8270955

[Median Democrat]

38. So, Greenwald Revising His Story After Dodd's Comments Makes His Original Opinion Correct?

Greenwald's response and updates are irrelevant. The point is that Greenwald got it wrong in his original story wrong. The fact that Greenwald is "updating" his story just underscores the fact that his original story is wrong. Please.

You want to show my OP is wrong. Fine. Use Greenwald's original story. Not Greenwald's after the fact edits of his original story.

[BlooInBloo]

39. If by "revise" you mean "that's exactly what he said the first time", then yes.

[Vinnie From Indy]

44. LOL!

Thanks for the chuckle!

[Cowpunk]

50. Perhaps I was a bit harsh

...toward Chris Dodd. He did try to get the provision removed through other means after it left his commitee, so I guess he didn't really cave at all.

[Captain Hilts]

40. Dodd and Snowe say the Admin wanted it. nt

[TacticalPeek]

45. Yo Median Democrat! You Were Wrong. Time To Apologize and Retract

If you are reduced to claiming that "over Dodd's objections" and "agreed reluctantly" have opposite meanings, if you have so little intellectual integrity that you to drop 'reluctantly' from "agreed reluctantly" to pad your case, then you actually do not have a case anymore.

What is kinda worse is that you also appear to be incapable of facing it.

[Louis-Emmanuel]

46. Good call. Greenwald was right in saying Dodd "gave in" to demands

Greenwald deserves an apology.

[BlooInBloo]

48. He sees it clearly enough. He's just being a typical American...

and acting as though if you don't admit it, then it isn't wrong.

[burythehatchet]

49. Honor is a prerequisite for an apology. Ergo, no apology

[BlooInBloo]

55. This thread has been shown 100% pure bullshit....

Now it's just funny, a la Seabiscuit.

[bvar22]

58. The OP is WRONG.

If the OP desires to regain ANY credibility, he/she will post a retraction and an apology....

Otherwise , he/she will be relegated to the trash bin of DU propagandists.

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. I'm frequently surprised at how many posts gain huge recs...

... after they've been proven to be bullshit.

[Eric J in MN]

59. Yes, Congress can make contracts null-and-void.

When someone is getting $5/hour, and Congress raises the minimum wage higher, then even if they had signed a contract for $5/hour it's null and void.

Also, Congress could leave the contracts alone but tax anyone at a bailed out firm 100% on compensation above $400,000/year.

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. Why am I always late to the party?

I didn't realize that we were revisiting the primaries... yet again.

Given subsequent events, I find it eminently plausible that treasury officials were pressuring congress to walk on eggshells and put no strings on the bailout funds.

I also find it plausible that Dodd would fall on a sword for the party.

[WeDidIt]

62. Glenn Greenwald - The Jason Leopold of 2009. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

66. Just for future DU-searchers to find, and revel in the idiocy that is this OP....

[Elidor]

67. Oh my

Imagine that.