Greenwald's Response To Dodd's Remarks Today....

[BlooInBloo]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/index.html

UPDATE III: 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.

Shorter Greenwald: (facepalm)

[Teaser]

1. motorized goalposts

.

[BlooInBloo]

2. hahahaha! I guess he went back in time and loaded the quote onto the goalposts.

:rofl:

[Teaser]

27. those aren't the droids I'm looking for.

the only goalposts that are moving are the locus of the scandal...ie not that the adminstration was behind these exemptions, I have no doubt that they were...but rather that the following excerpt from the New York Times

"The official noted that even a provision recently pushed through Congress by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, had an exemption for such bonus agreements already in place."


is evidence of any White House conspiracy to "Blame Dodd."

That is a gross overinterpretation of the available data. There are multiple contexts in which this statement could have been made without any ill will at all toward Senator Dodd.

That said, I'm not sure what else I have to say on the topic. The whole debate is immensely entertaining and I really don't want to throw too much of my brainpower into the matter, because if I actually engage about what's going here I would spoil the sweet taste of bile that has built up so far.

[ErinBerin84]

31. agreed

and the "supporting evidence" using Gibbs was kind of weak IMO too. And I like Greenwald a lot. But again, it's a blog. I don't think he should have to apologize, but people should be allowed to disagree with some of his points.

[valerief]

3. LOL!!!!

[Uzybone]

4. This guy is a fool and liar

Will he retract his smears of Gibbs and Rahm. He explicitly accused them of planting false stories about Dodd. He should at least have the decency to say "I was wrong'.

[EFerrari]

8. Right. Dodd went off and just did this by himself

and Glen is a fool and a liar.

These posts are embarrassing already.

[Louis-Emmanuel]

25. Why a liar? Greenwald said Dodd "gave in" and today we learn Dodd gave in

Isn't that like, the truth?

[EFerrari]

37. I wasn't making that assertion. Glen is careful

and when he's wrong, which is rarely, he owns it.

[depakid]

9. This guy's one of the brightest commentators on the web

and my bet is that when I'll the facts come out- Rahm will have had his fingers in this.

[Uzybone]

16. That may be true

but obviously those who take their facts from him are not so smart. He is just another blogger who is on our side. That doesn't make him gospel.

He smeared both Gibbs and Rahm without any evidence.

[Truth2Tell]

32. He referred to the press conference transcripts of Gibbs

and gave his opinion of what it sounded like. That's not a smear.

I agree with him.

[Uzybone]

34. We will agree to disagree then

I read the transcripts, its quite clear Gibbs was not blaming Dodd. I don't take a bloggers opinion as news anyways, so I'm not surprised by the conclusion I've reached about Greenwald.

[ErinBerin84]

12. yeah, I like Greenwald

but the part about Gibbs in the article was strange. I thought it was misleading. Oh well. I'm just tired of people acting like they DEFINITELY know what the fuck is up, because I think it's still developing and we're all just still in the process of finding things out. The story has changed a couple times since yesterday, it's giving me a headache.

[Double T]

5. Sorry chris, can't have it both ways.

Spineless.

[Thrill]

6. We're suppose to believe Dodd listened to some low level treasury official

Man he is so full of shit. And I don't think Obama is going to let him get away with it

[polichick]

10. Did he say "low level?"

[Thrill]

15. Well the Senior Positions aren't filled yet and he said 'staff level'

I think it may have been the Computer Tech in the basement :)

[polichick]

17. I actually feel bad for Dodd - he's covering for somebody; otherwise...

...he'd give a name.

[amandabeech]

26. No one at the top wanted to have their fingerprints on it.

Lower level folks will take the fall, both in congress and at treasury.

Wink, wink. Nod, nod. Donchaknow.

[Adelante]

19. Pretty much

Dodd said he did not speak to high-ranking administration officials and the change came after his staff spoke with staffers from Treasury.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/aig.bonuses.congress/

[polichick]

20. But his staffers were speaking for him, so who were the Treasury staffers...

...speaking for? Staffers don't pressure Senators to change amendments on their own.

[Thrill]

21. Yeah. And were they staffers left over from Bush??

[polichick]

23. Ah-ha, the plot gets thicker! Well, now I REALLY need to know who's...

...behind this ~ AND who stripped Snowe-Wyden. Dodd said he doesn't know who did that.

[gaiilonfong]

7. Someone needs t tell that IDIOT Greenwald and cohort Hollywwod Hampsher

that Hillary LOST the primary and won't run in 2012!

[BlooInBloo]

18. Wow. And people think *I* hold a grudge.

:rofl:

[Louis-Emmanuel]

24. But wasn't Greenwald correct in saying Dodd "gave in" to demands?

Isn't that what we learn today exactly happened?

[Median Democrat]

11. Third Update? THIRD Update? Please. This is dishonest journalism

Pathetic. Write a new story, but "updating" a story to explain away inconsistencies?

[BlooInBloo]

13. BWAHAHAAHAAA!!!!!!

[Teaser]

14. Eh, standard bloggery

just how it's done these days. Greenwald (and Hampsher) got some of this right, but overinterpretted another important bit. It ain't a crime, just how the outrage machine runs these days.

[Louis-Emmanuel]

22. He adds updates to nearly all his stories

Do you know what an update is? It's material ADDED to his stories. An update is not a correction.

Do you read his work in a daily basis? I guess not.

[BlooInBloo]

28. Such things matter not to people like MD.

[Louis-Emmanuel]

29. The problem is that Greenwald often scolds Obama on state secrets, prosecutions, etc.

So many here hold a grudge because of his independence and the fact that he at times opposes what He the President advocates.

[BlooInBloo]

30. (shrug) I find that annoying as well. lol!

There are few stronger Obama-defenders than me.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to compromise the truth fer fucks sake.

[Truth2Tell]

33. Sometimes it's nice

to find that you agree on something with someone you usually disagree with.

It can help put things in perspective. :toast:

[BlooInBloo]

35. True that.

[BlooInBloo]

36. Further update....

Same linkage as OP.

UPDATE IV: From the CNN article on the Dodd interview:

Dodd acknowledged his role in the change after a Treasury Department official told CNN the administration pushed for the language.

Both Dodd and the official, who asked not to be named, said it was because administration officials were afraid the government would face numerous lawsuits without the new language. . . .

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

It was the Treasury Department -- at least according to a Treasury official granted anonymity for the extremely compelling reason that he "asked not to be named" -- that pushed for the carve-out, and did so over Dodd's objections. That was the point from the beginning. That's precisely what made it so outrageous that the administration was trying to blame Dodd for a provision which Obama's own Treasury officials advocated, pushed for and engineered.

Anyone who doubts Dodd's opposition should just go read the above-excerpted articles which reported contemporaneously about the dispute Dodd was having with the White House over the scope of the compensation limits. For obvious reasons, those real-time accounts are far more instructive about what really happened than what the parties are saying now that everyone is trying desperately to avoid blame for the politically toxic AIG bonus payments.

[Hanse]

38. Greenwald- what a douche.

I wonder how long until Fox offers him a contract.