Alito Hides His Plan To Push Executive Immunity In Wiretapping
Alito Hides His Plan To Push Executive Immunity In Wiretapping
In today’s hearing, Alito tried to defend his 1984 position that U.S. Attorney John Mitchell, who authorized illegal wiretaps of American citizens, should be immune from punishment:
I do not question that the Attorney General [Mitchell] should have this immunity, but for tactical reasons I would not raise the issue here.
Today, Alito said that he supported absolute immunity only because it was a position that Attorney General Mitchell wanted to advance at the time:
Very briefly, is that we were — there we were not just representing the government. We were representing former attorney general Mitchell in his individual capacity. He was being sued for damages, and we were, in a sense, acting as his private attorney. And this was an argument that he wanted to make.…I said I didn’t think it was a good idea to make the argument in this case, but I didn’t dispute that it was an argument that was there.
Actually, Alito recommended the Justice Department pursue a long-term strategy to get the courts to endorse absolute immunity:
There are strong reasons to believe that our chances of success will be greater in future cases…our chances of persuading the Court to accept an absolute immunity argument would probably be improved in a case involving a less controversial official and a less controversial era.
Altio was pusuing an agenda. He just won’t admit it.
Full transcript below.
LEAHY: Well, let me go back to the last time we saw government excesses like this, reported at FISA. When you worked in the reagan administration, you argued to the supreme court president nixon’s attorney general should have absolutely municipality for domestic spying without a warrant in the case of willful misconduct. In your memo, you said, I do not question the attorney general should have the municipality, but — immunity, but for tactical reasons, I would not raise the issue here. Do you believe today that the attorney general would be absolutely immune from civil liability for authorizing warrantless wire taps?
ALITO: No, he would not. That was settled in that case. The Supreme Court held that the attorney general does not have –
LEAHY: But you do believe –
ALITO: Actually, I recommended that that argument not be made. It was made, and I think it’s important to understand the context of that. First of all —
LEAHY: You did say the memo, i do not question that the attorney general should have this immunity.
ALITO: That’s correct. and the background of that, if i could just explain.
LEAHY: Sure.
ALITO: Very briefly, is that we were — there we were not just representing the government. We were representing former attorney general mitchell in his individual capacity. He was being sued for damages, and we were, in a sense, acting as his private attorney. and this was an argument that he wanted to make. This was an argument that had been made several times previously by department of justice during the carter administration and then just a couple of years earlier in Harlo versus Fitzgerald in the Reagan administration, and I said I didn’t think it was a good idea to make the argument in this case, but I didn’t dispute that it was an argument that was there.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Alito is a liar, period. He couldn’t recollect whether or not he was “active” in the racist Princeton CAP organization (noted for opposing admissions of women and minorities at pPrinceton) even though his recollection iof where he ate and with whom was quite vivid, and danced the tango around questions of the legality of warrantless wiretapping and Bushiva’s stealth signing caveat to the torture bill giving himself and his henchmen immunity from it.
Orrin hHatch did everything but get down on his pitiful knees and perform on Alito in front of the crowd. Jees, what a sorry, disgusting Bushiteas*licking bast*rd…
Mentioning Mitchell also brings to mind how corrupt and racist this country REALLY is…
Frank Wills was the Black security guard who alerted authorities to the Watergate break-in that started the ball rolling…the proverbial whistleblower…
What did Wills get for his conscientiousness? He died penniless, destitute and blackballed…
What did the criminals get for their illegal participation? John Dean writes books, that crazy sombich G. Gordon Liddy has his own radio show, and there are others who’ve “cashed in” and gotten a second chance…
Gee, it must be be faaabulous to be a WASP male in crooked, racist America!!!!
Ollie North (of Iran-Contra fame) says YEAH!
January 10th, 2006 at 12:12 pmHere is a list of the Judiciary Committee members. E-Mail them through and request they vote against confirmation.
http://congress.org/congressorg/home
Judiciary Committee
Address: 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5225 Fax: (202) 224-9102
Website: http://judiciary.senate.gov
Schedule Of Hearings
JANUARY 09, 2006 – To hold hearings to examine the nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. SH-216
Committee Chair
Sen.
Arlen Specter (REP-PA)
Ranking Member
Sen.
Patrick J. Leahy (DEM-VT)
Republicans (10)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (REP-UT)
Sen. Charles Grassley (REP-IA)
Sen. Jon Kyl (REP-AZ)
Sen. Mike DeWine (REP-OH)
Sen. Jeff Sessions (REP-AL)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (REP-SC)
Sen. John Cornyn (REP-TX)
Sen. Sam Brownback (REP-KS)
Sen. Tom Coburn (REP-OK)
Democrats (8)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (DEM-MA)
Sen. Joseph Biden (DEM-DE)
Sen. Herbert Kohl (DEM-WI)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (DEM-CA)
Sen. Russ Feingold (DEM-WI)
Sen. Charles Schumer (DEM-NY)
Sen. Richard Durbin (DEM-IL)
January 10th, 2006 at 12:17 pmWhen we’re all in gulags secretly whispering this history to future generations, don’t forget to mention that Alito was monumental in delivering the final blow to our Constitution…
Am sure this with ruffle Giacomo’s feathers again, but what the hell… Today I have been asking my classes why is it important that they keep up with current events… And then, reminded them that people in other countries, through out history, have been told what to think, what to wear, what religion to belong to, who to marry, what to do for a living, and so on… (shock in maost of their faces) and that they should keep up with current events, especially politics, to make sure that they watch over an protect the freedoms for which so many people died in order to give to them.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:21 pmClyde – thanks for the info – will do!
January 10th, 2006 at 12:23 pmI’m against Alioto more for his willingness to allow King Dumbya to wreck havoc on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than I am for his abortion stance (which I also disagree with his position).
Vote the idiot off the list of SCOTUS’s and see which fascist dumbya pushes off the cliff next.
Our version of T-ball. Dumbya places it on the T for us, we hit a HR.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:31 pmHERE IN REPUBLICAN WORLD (TM)
The cool thing about being a republican is you can have your VERY OWN set of facts in a totally separate alternate reality!
http://www.perspectives.com/forums/forum4/58485-1.html
January 10th, 2006 at 12:39 pmAlito will not be able to hide this… the issue is hot and the questions will be flying.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:44 pmGee, Republican World â„¢ soulds like anice place to visit, but I don’t want to live there! Maybe they should open it up in another country?
January 10th, 2006 at 12:52 pmQuestions for ScAlito:
1. What limits, if any, does the Constitution place on the President?
January 10th, 2006 at 1:00 pm2. Can the President issue a signing statement to circumvent the law whenever he pleases?
3. Does a President’s attempt to use signing statements ever constitute an impeachable offense?
4. Do you subscribe to President Nixon’s view that if the President does it, it’s not illegal?
Scalito scares me because he’s so willing to lie in order to get this job. Maybe he just lies in general, I don’t know. Before I left for work, I watched him sit there and lie about having no recall of belonging to the anti-woman, anti-minority group at Princeton, and try to change the subject to Princeton having booted ROTC off campus. His pants are on fire.
Oh, and check out the Stepford wife and daughter behind him. The wife with the vacant half-smile and yesterday the daughter was sitting there with her legs so tightly wound around themselves it looked painful — Am I reading too much into the body language?
January 10th, 2006 at 1:05 pmand yesterday the daughter was sitting there with her legs so tightly wound around themselves it looked painful — Am I reading too much into the body language?
no, it’s how she retains her Catholic virginity…
Alito says he can’t remember being involved in CAP, or what they did back in his college days… what a crock! we don’t need Samuel Alzheimers on SCOTUS!
January 10th, 2006 at 1:16 pmAm sure this with ruffle Giacomo’s feathers again, but what the hell… Today I have been asking my classes why is it important that they keep up with current events… And then, reminded them that people in other countries, through out history, have been told what to think, what to wear, what religion to belong to, who to marry, what to do for a living, and so on… (shock in maost of their faces) and that they should keep up with current events, especially politics, to make sure that they watch over an protect the freedoms for which so many people died in order to give to them.
This sounds like a perfect thing for a high school teacher to do … why would my “feathers” be ruffled if you’re teaching your students to not be ignorant of the world around them?
I wish more high school teachers brought everyday events into any classroom (so, kudos to you) … my beef is when teachers interject their personal feelings into the discussion (especially at the onset and prior to the discussion … if the class asks, then that’s different … if it were me, I’d give them my opinion after the discussion was over (or winding down) if they asked). High school kids tend to be blissfully ignorant (college too, if you ask me) … challenging them to think and be informed is great!
January 10th, 2006 at 1:32 pm#11 – Excellent, Pete.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:50 pmHow does the concept of an “unfettered executive” square with any “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution?
January 10th, 2006 at 1:57 pmAlito is in bed with Bush & the GOP, so NO Democrat Senators should vote for him, but I expect the Trojan Horse Republicans Joe LIeberman and Ben Nelson to do so > lol.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:21 pmpusuing an agenda,
welp leest sum of ya izz typin more like me.
‘pus’ seems applicable, also ’suing’ as well. You have coined a new word, as duhbya might sey
January 10th, 2006 at 2:25 pmPUSUING
I guess I don’t understand the vitriol for Alito (or the incessant attempts to bill him as a liar or deceitful). It appears as though some believe that the truest substantiation for a nominee to SCOTUS is that the individual agree with the popular sentiment or belief system adhered to by those here. Should that individual not share said beliefs, attempts at deligitmization will vary from simplistic overgeneralizations (”he advocates strip searches on children”) to the absurd (”he is the first step toward gulags in the US”). The “liar” accusation, while poorly substantiated, seems to also be a popular method of demonization (because, of course, no one likes a liar).
While I’m not happy to have someone as left (yes, I know some say she isn’t very “liberal” but she’s more liberal than the rest of the court) as RBG on the SC, I can’t argue with either her 1) judicial qualifications nor her 2) intellectual muster. She’s imminently qualified … and I don’t agree with her political ideology … tough tarts for me. Interestingly enough, RBG sailed through confirmation with nary a snifle; (in spite of confirming her status of “pro-choice (she didn’t answer gay rights or death penalty questions)) with a unanimous Judiciary Committee vote and with 96-3 vote in the Senate. Does anyone pretend that if Alito admits he’s “pro-life” that the vote will be 96-3?
The Judiciary Committee is to test a nominees “fitness” for the SCOTUS … an exploration of qualifications, character and judicial philosophy. A problem arises when legitimate inquiries into judicial philosophy degenerate into “litmus test” questions … one’s which check adherance to a ideology. These are not (or should not be) disqualifying factors (as they weren’t with Judge BG or Judge Breyer). I find it hard to imagine that Republicans would behave in such an enlightened manner (with regard to judicial nominees only, mind you) yet the Democrats appear not as prepared to be so “progressive” …………………..?
January 10th, 2006 at 2:31 pmAbsolute immunity for the executive branch = fascist dictatorship.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:34 pm“You don’t have the votes..”
-Sen. Barbara Boxer in 2003 mocking Senate Republicans who could not overcome a partisan filibuster against several of President Bush’s judicial nominees.
Alito WILL BE SEATED on the High Court. The best you can hope for is that Ginsburg and Stevens don’t kick while Bush is in the White House. Because you don’t have the votes to stop him from keeping his campaign promise!!! lol!! Smear away – the world is tuning you OUT! The era of radical, left-wing judicial activism is OVER!!!
January 10th, 2006 at 2:36 pmGiacomo
January 10th, 2006 at 2:38 pmI shouldn’t be feeding the troll, but your so-called argument is so specious it makes my skin crawl. I’ll say it again – absolute immunity for the executive branch = fascist dictatorship. But that’s what you want anyway, isn’t it?
#11 – you sick pig. You attack someone’s family because you don’t like their ideology.
If there is any wonder why liberals cannot win elections, look no further than your reps on the Judiciary committee – Teddy the murderer, Dick “slander the troops” Durbin, Leaky Leahy – the whole lot!! People are so used to your mudslinging, it’s only use is to gin up the far left, radical base that America is scared too death of!
Liberalism is dying and people like #11 are leading the way!
January 10th, 2006 at 2:39 pm#1, right on.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:39 pm#20 – WE HAVE free elections. But, you need a positive agenda in order to win. Not some “Bush is Hitler” rant. If he was Hitler, he would have gassed you by now for being so anti-American. He’s not. This is reality. Come back to it.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:40 pmMarie – are you scared? Your favorite toy is being taken away from you. Now, you can’t hide behind the Courts to justify infanticide. What a sad day for libbies!
January 10th, 2006 at 2:41 pmWell, the tag team trolls are once again on with their sick blathering. Does the RNC pay you by the day in cash or do they just nurse along your crystal meth habit?
January 10th, 2006 at 2:44 pm#25 – the meth of course. I just wanted to see liberals as they bottom out. You deserve a Court of nine Alitos for all the hatred you spewed in the name of this sacred institutuion. You deserve this.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:46 pm[...] Watch Alito [...]
January 10th, 2006 at 2:47 pmAu contraire, SL #24. It is the Repub/Cons who want to keep the abortion issue alive. It is their raison d’etre. Keeping that battle fired up fills the ranks of their army of toadies.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:48 pmThey really don’t want Roe v.Wade reversed — it brings them much publicity and fired up evangelicals.
I shouldn’t be feeding the troll, but your so-called argument is so specious it makes my skin crawl. I’ll say it again – absolute immunity for the executive branch = fascist dictatorship. But that’s what you want anyway, isn’t it?
I’ve re-read my post and can’t find that part where I said “bring on the absolute immunity … woo hoo”.
I wish you’d respond to the substance of MY POST (heck, at least attempt to clarify why this case should be looked at differently than RBG or Breyer) rather than your opinion on a self-generated talking point, a phenomenon I, ironically, discuss in the begining of my post 17. Are you inferring that the Republicans DIDN’T have serious concerns about the tilt of the court after RBG or Breyer and ignorantly approved them?
Good use of the word specious though … I haven’t seen that one in quite some time.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:48 pm#28 – you hope so, don’t you?
But that said, I don’t think Roe will be overturned. It will be brought back to it’s original intent, there will parental notification and no late term and that is exactly where the country is. Even if Alito is another Scalia, they won’t have the votes to OT it.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:50 pmSane Liberal or IRI or whomever …
I was actually trying to make an honest and lucid point and it’ll likely be lost with the injection of your blather … if you would please leave the arguments to those of us Conservatives that don’t wish to just stir up a hornets nest … that’d be great … thanks.
By the way, if you attack me, you’ll look really, really stupid.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:52 pmI’ve got the greatest news!
When you hear the Chicago Protest against Bushie you will be so motivated, nothing will stop you from demanding the impeachment of the criminals in office.
You’ll be jumping out of your seat.
But thats not all. When listening to the audio of the Chicago Protest, you will be given instructions on how to VIEW the Chicago Protest MOVIE!
It’s Primal, its American! The People have spoken!
It is so powerful you’ll remember why we love America so much.
Stay tuned, the audio will be on our station soon. The Movie will freak you out! (by the way, its rated (R))
January 10th, 2006 at 2:53 pmOh my, troll catfight.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:54 pm#31 – the only one who looks foolish right now is the person trying to rationalize with these morons.
Susan – are there people holding signs that say “9/11 was an inside job”? Because I won’t go unless those signs are there.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:55 pmBy the way, The Republicans do not want you to see this movie. As a matter of fact, they will outbid each other to ensure that it doesn’t get aired.
It’s out.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:56 pmSusan – I never miss an opportunity to watch liberals make complete fools of themselves.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:00 pmThe man is slippery in the Rovian sense, no?
January 10th, 2006 at 3:02 pmGiacomo
January 10th, 2006 at 3:02 pmI don’t care about the “lucid” points in your post. Alito publically admitted that he argued for absolute immunity for the executive branch, not just including the President, but the Attorney General. I suggest you watch the hearings.
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint…
Ahem, your Civics lesson for today… there will be Q’s, so you’d better be prepared. There are many ways to listen or watch the hearings today, that have only just now started. No excuses, K……
January 10th, 2006 at 3:04 pmMy personal distaste for Alito has nothing to do with his conservative views. If he is conservative and has the ability to judge independently based on the constitution taking into account the actual words of the document, the intent of the founding fathers and the past precedents when honestly considering his opinions and leave as much of their personal bias out as possible.
With Alito though there are too many things he advocates that are not part of the constitution. Lately it is that he may not follow Stare Decisis? WTF? That is a legal principle that I thought, until now, was set in stone. His views on presidential power and signing statements are very alarming and don’t really have any basis in the constitution, the thoughts of the founders or in the numerous examples of past precedents. He is in one short phrase “extremist in his views and completely out of touch with mainstream America.
I have no doubt that he will bring his personal bias on board. Heck in all the case he has rule don can anyone come up with any cases where he sided with the little guy at all? He is always taking the side of law enforcement or business over the individual. Are they just that better prepared all the time? You would think that occasionally the other guy would benefit from his judicial wisdom too.
On top of that are his questionable ethics. Can’t remember joining a club with questionable ethics and then used that club on his job application? Or how about him answering questions back in 1985 just to get the job? Did he believe what he wrote? Or was he lying? If he will say anything to get the job back then (Essentially lying to President Reagan’s administration) will he say anything to get the job today? Regardless of what he says at these hearings, can he be trusted? How about recusal? Shouldn’t he have recused himself in the Vanguard case? (I had this problem with Roberts too since he decided a crucial case involving prisoners in the administrations favor while he was being secretly vetted by the administration) Also Alito is supporting John Mitchell and his illegalities? Sheesh.
All in all while he may have the proper legal training and experience, he truly does not have the right mindset to be a supreme court justice.
BTW he was nto nominated because of his views on abortion. Get over that one Dems. He wa snominated, as was Meirs, because of his views of presidential powers.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:13 pmI don’t care about the “lucid†points in your post. Alito publically admitted that he argued for absolute immunity for the executive branch, not just including the President, but the Attorney General.
Why, then, did you respond to me … I make a post that poses questions, you respond answering a question I didn’t ask (but, I guess, is a big issue to you), I point out this fact, you say you don’t care … then why did you repeat yourself …
I read your earlier comment that was the exact same comment you made to me. Feel free and re-post it 1000 times, but if you’re going to put my name at the top (and call my post specious) then I would think you’d actually say something that relates to me in some way … but maybe that’s just me.
Now, as for your comment, Judge Alito and absolute immunity … here is what he said when defending his client …
This memo dealt with whether government officials should have blanket protection from lawsuits when authorizing wiretaps … despite Alito’s warning that the government would lose, the Reagan administration took the fight to the Supreme Court (the case was whether Nixon’s attorney general, John Mitchell, could be sued for authorizing a warrantless domestic wiretap to gather information about a suspected terrorist plot).
This case ultimately led to a 1985 ruling by the Supreme Court that the attorney general and other high level executive officials could be sued for violating people’s rights (in the name of national security) with such actions as domestic wiretaps.
However, the court said Mitchell was protected from suit, because when he authorized the wiretap he did not realize his actions violated the Fourth Amendment.
Alito had advised his bosses to appeal the case on narrow procedural grounds but NOT SEEK blanket immunity.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:21 pmBig papa I have great respect for you.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:27 pm12.
Maybe if teachers were paid a good wage, more Right Wingers would be interested in the Job. Until then, the bleeding heart liberals will be teaching most of our young people.
PS. 45k a year is not considered a good wage to influencial conservatives.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:33 pmSane Liberal, are you NED?
January 10th, 2006 at 3:34 pmOf course the Executive Branch should have absolute immunity. And then let’s vote more emergency powers to Supreme Chancelor Bush. Back off, Yoda!
January 10th, 2006 at 4:11 pmAlito and people like Sane are just plain treasonous for trying to rip apart the constitution , they need to get their own document such as the patriot act to wipe their asses on because the Bill of Rights is ours the real americans.
January 10th, 2006 at 4:57 pmmy beef is when teachers interject their personal feelings into the discussion (especially at the onset and prior to the discussion … if the class asks, then that’s different … if it were me, I’d give them my opinion after the discussion was over (or winding down) if they asked).
I still think what you are asking is unrealistic. Human beings have preferences (it’s a survival skill). You can no more check your preferences at the door than you can your feet…
High school kids tend to be blissfully ignorant (college too, if you ask me) … challenging them to think and be informed is great!
Comment by Giacomo — January 10, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
Giacomo, seriously – most of them have nothing to compare to. They’ve only known childhood where mom and dad provide. The handful who are emancipated and living on their own are much more serious. At this level they are adults who’ve not yet had the experience of being responsible for themselves. Ignorance is not their choice, and in fact, those who get into trouble do so for trying to gain experience…
January 10th, 2006 at 5:10 pmBrokeback Committee Room…
Russ Feingold brings up the practice sessions. ……
January 10th, 2006 at 5:13 pm17- Yes, the vitriol does rise when people talk about politics, but I’m sure you already knew that. And somehow I just have a hard time thinking that it is exclusive to here, but that is beside the point.
Plain and simple, Alito seems far too deferential to government power, especially in the executive. With the current debate (I think we prefer the term scandal around here) over the NSA eavesdopping, torture/rendition, as well as the President’s self-proclaimed power to determine the status of prisoners/detainees, or whether we abide by treaties that we are signatories to, I find it a little duplicitous to be told that the President gets the SCOTUS of his choosing. Didn’t work for Roosevelt, and Bush is certainly no FDR. I don’t recall Ginsburg or Breyer being in favor of unlimited executive power. And that you have to claim the RGB is more liberal than the rest of the court says far more about the current makeup of the court than it does about Ginsburg, for there is certainly no confusing her with a liberal. Also, if memory serves me correctly, didn’t Clinton actually consult with Congress regarding his nominees?
January 10th, 2006 at 6:05 pmthis “administration” is very scary. They will send everyone to war for their “ideals” to Zionism. In my opinion FDR was a great four term president and look what he accomplished. Put everyone back to work, where bush wants to take American work and outsource it. CAFTA, NAFTA, et al. started the downhill slide. Our open borders where everyone streams across, cost taxpayers billions. Four hospitals in California closed down because illegals could not pay. Bush advocates “amnesty”. All he is doing is displacing more American workers. What the hell did he do for New Orleans? This group of neo-cons has screwed up everything they have attempted. ‘06 should be the year of impeachment as they are war criminals. And I have seen them as a Vietnam combat veteran. This administration needs far less power, not more. The executive must answer to Congress.
January 10th, 2006 at 6:47 pm#49, David
January 10th, 2006 at 7:04 pmWell stated comment!
My God, the horror…
January 11th, 2006 at 1:28 amFriends, the last word on Alito and the Nazification of America:
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3302alito_fuehrerprinzip.html
January 11th, 2006 at 4:51 amAlito says he can’t remember being involved in CAP, or what they did back in his college days… what a crock! we don’t need Samuel Alzheimers on SCOTUS!
Comment by Pete Bogs #11
Hey Pete,
It’s an inbred gene handed down to all the right wing Bushite scum sucking traitors by their GREAT FATHER
RONNIE RAYGUNN…
January 11th, 2006 at 12:01 pmLiberalism is dying and people like #11 are leading the way!
Comment by Sane Liberal #21
InSane Librarian,
Quick…do your part to resuscitate it, blow into the mike…
January 11th, 2006 at 12:05 pmOh Canada, Oh Canada here I come, Oh Canada!
January 11th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
January 11th, 2006 at 11:57 pm[...] ThinkProgress brings us speculation on how Alito Hides His Plan To Push Executive Immunity In Wiretapping, as well as a very interesting post entitled “Graham’s Behind-the-Scenes Coaching of Alito Could Violate Senate Ethics Rules,” “Graham” of course refers to the Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham- not the oh so delicious crackers of the same name, which were created in the 1800s by a Presbyterian reverend, in hopes that they would suppress lust. [...]
March 13th, 2006 at 6:21 pmWhite House press secretary Scott McClellan would not say who Bush believes has been irresponsible, other than Democratic Party chief Howard Dean, who said last month that “the idea that we’re going to win this war … is just plain wrong.†In the past, the White House has also singled out, among others, Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who became a leading advocate for a quick troop pullout, and other Democrats who say Bush has no strategy.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:08 amWhite House press secretary Scott McClellan would not say who Bush believes has been irresponsible, other than Democratic Party chief Howard Dean, who said last month that “the idea that we’re going to win this war … is just plain wrong.†In the past, the White House has also singled out, among others, Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who became a leading advocate for a quick troop pullout, and other Democrats who say Bush has no strategy.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:09 amCheap apartments apartment house rent
November 20th, 2006 at 6:13 am