Middle east hearing

Lantos saying that the timing for a middle east conference is “inappropriate”. That this is a desperate effort by the Bush administration to leave some positive mark.

Condi Rice “we may lose this window to give the moderate forces hope that statehood for Palestine is a reality”

Not long ago someone asked where the dividing line between “moderate Republicans” and “extremist Republicans” was. Now I have to ask, with regard to both Lantos & Lieberman & Feinstein and Israelis, where is the line between the “moderate Jews” and the “extremist Jews?

Despite the Jewish Democrats Liberal domestic policies, their foreign policy positions have almost always mirrored those of Israel. Can America afford to let Israel sling us around like a big club in the Middle East?

Ask America’s Jewish politicians, where do America’s interests lie? And, can they differentiate between our interests and those of Israel?

[ Note: Not all of the Jewish politicians fall into this category of behavior. Russ Feingold is obviously not the same, despite his Jewish-type name. Chuck Schumer is a question-mark to me on this issue. ]

We need to know.

…
that is why i have been ranting on and on about rep. rush holt’s bill. he’s the only one (that i know of) who has actually done the work to write a bill that addresses the issues the administration says it has with the old fisa law without immunity (either prospective or retroactive) and with protections against basket warrants.

did you see my one and only youtube? it’s a 2 min statement last week of rush holt on the house floor speaking against the “restore act” and basket warrants (and he also mentions how his efforts have been underminded by house leadership).

Maybe we’re seeing ANOTHER real leader in action!

portia.vz @ 147

If I understand you correctly, you would not rule out future suits. Under what conditions would the telecoms agree to this if they are willing to agree to concessions and turn over all relevent documentation? Would it be evidence of non-compliance? And are you saying that the concessions alone would be enough punishment so that “retroactive” immunity could go forward?
Sorry to be obtuse. I’m just trying to understand your conditions in negotiating a deal.

sorry i wasn’t clear.

as i understand it, the bills being considered include prospective immunity – immunity from future law breaking.

i’m willing to consider immunity from prior law breaking so long as 1) the entire truth comes out and 2) we extract a lot of consessions. 3) a committment to following the law going forward.

immunity for future lawbreaking must be taken out of the fisa bill. otherwise we don’t have #3).

is that a bit better?

Yep, sounds perfect to me.

Elliott @ 10

Hillary’s Hedge,
all she has to say when she votes for telecom immunity is that she heard some secret thing she can’t tell us

I keep hearing Hillary and Obama complain about Edwards and how he can say anything he wants to say because he’s not in office now and how there aren’t any consequences if he promises the moon and the stars. Which is kind of true. But if Obama and Hillary aren’t willing to do anything while in the Senate, well, in my mind at least, that’s a whole lot worse.

How about no more hedges and no more pledges from our candidates currently in the Senate? It’s a simple standard, and one that even they ought to understand.

Exactly. Is Dodd not in the Senate? I understand the need to keep your options open, but Obama and HRC are simply scared shitless of taking a position on ANYTHING.

Hillary’s Hedge,
all she has to say when she votes for telecom immunity is that she heard some secret thing she can’t tell us

I keep hearing Hillary and Obama complain about Edwards and how he can say anything he wants to say because he’s not in office now and how there aren’t any consequences if he promises the moon and the stars. Which is kind of true. But if Obama and Hillary aren’t willing to do anything while in the Senate, well, in my mind at least, that’s a whole lot worse.

How about no more hedges and no more pledges from our candidates currently in the Senate? It’s a simple standard, and one that even they ought to understand.

Obama, Clinton join Dodd in filibuster threat

No comment.

selise @ 146

portia.vz @ 144 –

i might be willing to go along with you here… but only under the condition that there was no prospective immunity in the new fisa legislation. and that is not what is being proposed.

If I understand you correctly, you would not rule out future suits. Under what conditions would the telecoms agree to this if they are willing to agree to concessions and turn over all relevent documentation? Would it be evidence of non-compliance? And are you saying that the concessions alone would be enough punishment so that “retroactive” immunity could go forward?
Sorry to be obtuse. I’m just trying to understand your conditions in negotiating a deal.

sorry i wasn’t clear.

as i understand it, the bills being considered include prospective immunity – immunity from future law breaking.

i’m willing to consider immunity from prior law breaking so long as 1) the entire truth comes out and 2) we extract a lot of consessions. 3) a committment to following the law going forward.

immunity for future lawbreaking must be taken out of the fisa bill. otherwise we don’t have #3).

is that a bit better?

portia.vz @ 144 –

i might be willing to go along with you here… but only under the condition that there was no prospective immunity in the new fisa legislation. and that is not what is being proposed.

If I understand you correctly, you would not rule out future suits. Under what conditions would the telecoms agree to this if they are willing to agree to concessions and turn over all relevent documentation? Would it be evidence of non-compliance? And are you saying that the concessions alone would be enough punishment so that “retroactive” immunity could go forward?
Sorry to be obtuse. I’m just trying to understand your conditions in negotiating a deal.

i might be willing to go along with you here… but only under the condition that there was no prospective immunity in the new fisa legislation. and that is not what is being proposed.

Bad thing!!