And, in fact, honestly and logically, if the president really felt that this lapse would cause a harm to the security of the country, why did he insist the Republicans vote against an extension?
The logic would be, extend the existing legislation, which we were quite willing to do, for a period of time. What the president is talking about is not the security of the country. REED: It’s two factors. One is retroactive immunity for telecom companies. That’s important to them, but that’s not central to our national security. We’re not talking about prospective immunity. We’re not talking about current programs. We’re talking about looking back and protecting them. And indeed, we weren’t even — many senators, myself included, weren’t even allowed to look at the documentation which would inform our judgment about this immunity program. And the second issue, I think, is that the president prefers to talk about these issues rather than our economy that’s sliding into recession, consumer confidence that has fallen to the lowest point in 16 years. Real problems that are gripping the American families. And I think this is part of the policy of, try to ignore those pressing domestic prob
Related Questions
- President Jagdeo of Guyana has asked for the UKs support to protect his countrys forests. Is there a connection with this deal?
- Can Mr. Shamoun honestly scientifically explain to us why does the birth of females cause double the pollution?
- Do airport security devices cause harm to Sony® electronic products and related media?
