Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) has called on Karl Rove and other top White House aides to testify under oath in front of Congress concerning their role in the U.S. attorney purge. A response from White House Counsel Fred Fielding is expected today, but in the meantime, the White House and its allies have put up a fight, arguing that presidential advisers have historically not testified in front of Congress:
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow: Well, as you know, Ed, it has been traditional in all White Houses not to have staffers testify on Capitol Hill. [3/13/07]
White House Counselor Dan Bartlett: I find it highly unlikely that a member of the White House staff would testify publicly to these matters. [3/13/07]
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH): No, I think you’re violating a precedent there that should not be violated. … I believe that under the separation of powers, there are limits to the extent to which Congress can subpoena or demand testimony from those who were closest to the president. [3/15/07]
But in reality, there is no such precedent. According to the Congressional Research Service, under President Clinton, 31 of his top aides testified on 47 different occasions. The aides who testified included some of Clinton’s closest advisors:
Harold Ickes, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff - 7/28/94
George Stephanopoulos, Senior Adviser to the President for Policy and Strategy - 8/4/94
John Podesta, Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary - 8/5/94
Bruce R. Lindsey, Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President - 1/16/96
Samuel Berger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs - 9/11/97
Beth Nolan, Counsel to the President - 5/4/00
In contrast, between 2000 and 2004, Bush allowed only one of his closest advisers, then-Assistant to the President for Homeland Security Tom Ridge, to appear in front of Congress. He has also refused three invitations from Congress for his aides to testify, a first since President Richard Nixon in 1972. Clinton did not refuse any.
CRS also notes that although “White House aides do not testify before congressional committees in a regular basis…under certain conditions they do. First, intense and escalating political embarrassment may convince the White House that it is in the interest of the President to have these aides testify and ventilate the issue fully. Second, initial White House resistance may give way in the face of concerted congressional and public pressure.”
Thanks, TP, for providing the fact that there is no precedent and certainly now law under which they can now hide.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:16 amsorry….”no law”….my fingers haven’t fully awakened this morning. Sorry for the typo.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:17 amsubpoena rove’s ass and, if he refuses, hold him in contempt of congress and toss him in jail…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
March 20th, 2007 at 10:18 amAnd it can be clearly assumed that if the WH is putting pressure on them to not testify, there’s a pile of info they do not want to be brought out….any resistance on Rove or Bush’s part is only indicative of guilt. Otherwise, what would they have to hide???
March 20th, 2007 at 10:18 amYeah. Right. Members of the administration don’t have to testify before Congress. Nixon called it “Executive Privilege”. He’s also the guy who is “if the president does something, that means it is not illegal.”
Haldeman. Erlichman. Dean. Mitchell. They ALL testified and the truth came out. That’s the purpose of an investigation. We’re at the coverup stage of this administration…
March 20th, 2007 at 10:21 amThey don’t seem to care so much about the precedent of not firing sitting US attorneys who aren’t ‘loyal’ enough to the president.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:21 amI want Rove in a Congressional hearing, I don’t care what needs to be done to get him there. Handcuffs are a lovely idea….
I have no doubt that he will lie with a straight face, but I want him sitting in that chair, under oath, and on camera when he does it.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:22 amWhy is everyone still so afraid of Rove? Does he know where so many bodies are buried that no one can cross him? Maybe his strategy of ensuring that he’s the only marginally competent person in the room is saving his ass.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:22 amJust as always they Bushies state a complete falsehood as if it’s fact. And how many Americans believe it because they said it? Even our trolls, once the truth is shown to them, disavow the truth saying its all politics or where’s the proof.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:24 amWhy don’t they ever ask the administration where the proof is for the web of lies they’ve woven.
concerted public pressure????
the only pressure is from the Democrats and the media who smell blood.
furthermore, I seem to remember the Clinton White House fighting hard a Republican control Congress in the 1990s to not allow members of their White HOuse testify.
Once again, thinkprogress.org being 100% dishonest. But what can we expect, honestly and truth is not exactly the lefts forte, right?
March 20th, 2007 at 10:24 amAnd, yes, I DO take it personally
Comment by profmarcus — March 20, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Thanks for speaking for all of us - except the trolls that is.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:26 amprofmarcus,
please, please, please read up on Constitutional Law!!!!
The Executive Branch has every single right to not testify before Congress!
Seperations of Powers people!
If Congress had the ability to force the Executive Branch to testify at its whims our government would be controlled by one of its Branches and not all three.
sorry Thinkprogress, but like most of the time, you are 100% wrong.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:28 amHah! There goes Boner-Boehner’s “precedent argument”. This guy should be sidelined due to his complicity in the Foley scandal anyway.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:29 amBut, But, Butt Clinton?##!~~
March 20th, 2007 at 10:29 amWhat is at play here and some of you fringe liberals have already said is that the left hates Karl Rove so much that they want him on the hot seat.
Democrats wants to destroy Karl Rove, they feel that he has harmed them and they want to destroy him.
how truly and honestly sad.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:30 amBut, But Butt, Separation of Powers or Executive Privilege!!! No subpoenas, no, please, wait….We’ll get back to you about your “request” sometime in Jan 09…
March 20th, 2007 at 10:31 amSince when did the Bushites let the Law or Facts get in their way?
March 20th, 2007 at 10:31 amshane,
it is more like Democrats and outlets like thinkprogress.org put out lies and individuals like you believe them because you have to justify your hate for this admininstration.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:32 amWhite House Press Secretary Tony Snow: Well, as you know, Ed, it has been traditional in all White Houses not to have staffers testify on Capitol Hill
Snowflake, ‘all’ WH’s is totally inaccurate. It should read ‘this’ WH does not have staffers testify for two reasons…
-We cannot allow them to repeat our lies
-Until now, we had a majority & no one dared to testify against us.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:32 amIf Rove has nothing to hide, let him come forward, under oath and speak the TRUTH.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:32 amHow is this bad for the country, unless he has something to hide???
…and KKKarl Rove hasn’t detroyed anybody?
March 20th, 2007 at 10:33 amuuuuuuu Clinton did it, his aides testified… Opps I guess the righties will not use this as one of their but Clinton tirades…
March 20th, 2007 at 10:33 amNow why would anyone hate Karl Rove. Howsad, could you give us some glowing reviews of all the good this man has done? Please, do tell.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:35 am#8 Rove’s demeanor reeks of any psychopath/sociopath we’ve ever observed whether it’s Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, or John Couey. They have the detachment of conscience to sit there and be unaffected by consequences of their criminal behavior. The reason people fear Rove is that have seen the innerworkings of a very demented mind in action with his chicanery, double talk, and conman coverup antics. Rove’s fingerprints are all over each and every lie & criminal action in this administration. They’ve called him “boy wonder” for good reason. Since he was unpopular all of his life because of the way he looked (nerd personified) he realized that “mind games” could be his strong suit and he developed his deceptive tactics early on.
I agree with Zooey though and I can’t wait to watch this pathological liar squirm and/or sit there totally detached from the reality of the hearing and his part in the cover-up.
This is the Watergate Cover-up redux; this is the Fall of the House of Bush.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:35 amHow sad that each
March 20th, 2007 at 10:35 amGallon of water weighs 8.345404 pounds.
Must be excruciating carrying so much.
howsad–
Well, there’s this little thing about Rove and the administration that we don’t like…that they sent our sons and daughters and husbands and wives to lose their limbs and lives to play out their little psycho-drama in Iraq. If these people weren’t doing terrible things, we wouldn’t be trying to stop them.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:35 am#19 Snowjob Tony will soon be joining Scott McClellan and his sound bites will be used in testimony against this administration in hearings to come. He’s another quintessential “puppet”.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:36 amVeritas :
thanks for a well written and well thought out post.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:38 amIt’s going to be hard to hide this under cover of executive privilege - the history of that tactic would seem to indicate a crime has been committed. Maybe they’ll try the “national security” gambit.
Hey, howsad:
If there wasn’t “concerted public pressure” you wouldn’t be posting here. And, you have the audacity to accuse the left of dishonesty? YOUR leaders are blatant liars. Are you trippin’ or stupid?
March 20th, 2007 at 10:38 amTrolls are likely to blow a gasket trying to spin this: Bush can purge USAs because Clinton did, but Bush can ignore the fact that Clinton’s advisors were subpoened to testify to Congress. Whirrrrrrrr, Boom!
Get Rove under oath and don’t stop with questions about the purge of USAs. Ask about outing Plame. Ask about wiretapping American citizens without court order. Ask about voter fraud. Hhhmm, this wouldn’t be the neocon fear, could it?
March 20th, 2007 at 10:39 amJake, why are your guys so worried about testifying under oath if they haven’t done anything illegal? I think you’ve been asked this question several times, but I don’t recall seeing your answer.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:40 amI seem to remember the Clinton White House fighting hard a Republican control Congress in the 1990s to not allow members of their White HOuse testify.
Comment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 10:24 am
Hey trollbreath - just ignore the facts, make shit up and everybody will believe. Another troll taking lessons from Mein Kampf no doubt.
Here’s a clue - you can’t hear what the SILENT MAJORITY is saying, that’s why they call it silent einstein. Of course yesterday we saw how you trolls cherry pick polls so why don’t you go watch
Fox Lose and find us one that fits your argument.
Then repeat it over and over and over and the other trolls will give you a big Heil Hitler.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:41 amJake, why are your guys so worried about testifying under oath if they haven’t done anything illegal? I think you’ve been asked this question several times, but I don’t recall seeing your answer.
Comment by VerbalKint — March 20, 2007 @ 10:40 am
I don’t care for this reasoning, its the same type they use to justify warrantless wiretaps.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:42 amhowsad: Please read up on Constitutional Law!
Congress has every right to subpoena members of the Executive Branch. “The separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence. The Constitution enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.” – U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. v. Nixon, 1974). (See also Gorsuch v. House of Representatives (DC., 1983); Morrison v. Olson (U.S., 1988).)
March 20th, 2007 at 10:44 amPLC, perhaps the trolls could study the Sufi to learn about spinning?
March 20th, 2007 at 10:44 amplease, please, please read up on Constitutional Law!!!!
The Executive Branch has every single right to not testify before Congress!
Comment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 10:28 am
And I assume you have this interpretation because you have your law degree and fought a constitutional law case in front of the Supreme Court on this issue. Where exactly did you get your degree and the case was ???? vs. United States Congress. Please give us the case info and will look it up.
Otherwise your just another troll simpleton who doesn’t understand how the law works. And how specialized Constitutional Law is and how there may be precedent on cases but there is never a definitive answer to an issue under the law.
If the law was definitive as you trolls state why do we need a Supreme Court or any judges for that matter.
You trolls just love to play judge, jury and executioner don’t you?
Where did you get your law degree?
March 20th, 2007 at 10:46 amWhat’s becoming even more overwhelmingly clear in this latest scandal (how many in the last two weeks?) is that nothing, nothing matters to these people except power.
There is no other credible explanation for why they do what they do.
They don’t care about process; they don’t care about representative democracy; they don’t care about separation of powers; they don’t care about Constitution or our nation’s laws.
They will say and do whatever works to their advantage. They care nothing about the consequences for the rest of us.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:52 amit is more like Democrats and outlets like thinkprogress.org put out lies and individuals like you believe them because you have to justify your hate for this admininstration.
Comment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Oh and Fox news tells the truth and nothing but the truth. Your not really that stupid are you?
No really, tell me you’re not and this is a put on?
Your congress had six years to exercise some oversight and did nothing. Sat on their hands.
And your buddy Malign and Smear Rove is the reason so many Republican were afraid to bring up any issues of impropriety.
You want to step on your pr**k defending Rove. A man who wouldn’t piss on his mother if she was on fire you go ahead. We’ll just add that to your Resume of Credibility and really respect your arguments from now on.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:52 amwow, you Liberals are too predictable! your hate for Karl Rove is pathetic…
So, do you guys hate the Clinton administration who had 5,000+ troops die while he was in the White House and were supposedly not at war.
do you guys hate the Clinton administration since they gave no-bid contracts to Halliburton and those other “evil” corporations for war profeting?
Oh ooops sorry, you guys only mind stuff like this when Republicans doe it, you guys could careless when Democrats do it.
I am laughing at the Liberal hateful rants against Karl Rove.
keep on amusing me liberals.
you kids are funny. thanks for the laughs.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:53 amHowsad, did you bother to read the attachment? I’m still waiting for the wonderful deeds of Karl Rove.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:54 amAnd You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid, (yeah, Reagan was so stupid he ended the Cold War)
Congress can subpoena any member of the Executive Branch it wants, it doesn’t mean that the Executibe Branch has to make an apperance!
In more than one occassion the Judicial Branch has stepped in and rendered Congressional subpoenas useless because of seperations of powers.
read up on your Constitutional Law, don’t pick and chose what is convinient for your argument.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:56 amHow sad that howsad’s logic is so bad that he has to resort to the Clintonbad retorts.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:58 am#15 howsad
What is at play here and some of you fringe liberals have already said is that the left hates Karl Rove so much that they want him on the hot seat.
Democrats wants to destroy Karl Rove, they feel that he has harmed them and they want to destroy him.
how truly and honestly sad.
If Karl Rove didn’t have his hands in so many different pies, he wouldn’t be constantly getting accused of it. He took this on. He prides himself on being able to pull ALL the strings. He’s been directing traffic in the White House and making sure that every single breath that a member of this administration takes in some way contributes to a political payoff for Bush. Every policy, every piece of legislation, every deal has to have a political angle to it. That’s Rove’s doing.
You can bet the house that Rove was behind getting his protege, Tim Griffin, into the Arkansas USA’s office. And the primary reason was to stir up mischief if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination. All politics, all the time.
Rove’s public statements alone are enough to earn him contempt. But, it’s his constant manipulation of political processes that are going to get him on the hotseat. He asked for it.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:59 am#41: any case cites? Or are you just pulling your argument out of your butt? See, I cited cases… this is how the law works.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:59 amHey Liberals, tell you what…
When Bush and his administration refuse to give up power on January 2008 I will believe your hateful rants against them, until then please stop with the ridiculous and embarrasing yourself comments like, “Bush is a dictator…” crap, ok? deal?
You guys control Congress, barely, why are you liberals so angry and hateful?
Amazing how you Liberals expressed outrage at the so called right wing hatred of Clinton in the 1990s, but you guys have no problem being hateful towards Republicans.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:59 amhowsad: your argument is basically, “on more than one occasion”? Typical Republican. You have no facts, just your lousy opinion and talking points.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:00 amComment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid — March 20, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Thanks for the great post - it’s what I was trying to say right after but unlike the trolls I admit I am not an attorney.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:00 amThreads like this they’re all attorneys. Women’s health, they’re all doctors.
Bunch of geniuses our little trolls.
How’s that law degree working for you howsad?? Mine has served me well.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:01 amIn more than one occassion the Judicial Branch has stepped in and rendered Congressional subpoenas useless because of seperations of powers.
read up on your Constitutional Law, don’t pick and chose what is convinient for your argument.
Comment by howsad
So, that means that ON more than one occasion, the Judicial Branch did NOT step in and squash Congressional subpoenas on the basis of separation of powers. So, who is picking and chosing what is convenient for both the argument and the suspicious behavior of his leader?
March 20th, 2007 at 11:01 am#5 -publicus: You are right..all participants of the White House Watergate scandal under Nixon were called to testify before the Congress,Haldeman,Erlichman, J.Dean in addtion to Attorney General J.Mitchell.
As an insider , John Dean testimony was critical in breaking the case against Nixon.
It was aired then by all major networks live,due to the importance of the matter(No cables then).
But for T.Snow to claim that it is a tradition that no White House staff ever testified is not accurate at all.
Not to forget that also Clinton’s staff also testified….before the Congress.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:01 am“I don’t care for this reasoning, its the same type they use to justify warrantless wiretaps.
Comment by erock — March 20, 2007 @ 10:42 am”
But thats why it fits……
The supporters of “warrentless wiretaps” always use this as an arguing point! So by using their logic, “if they have nothing to hide then they should be willing to testify under oath.”
It’s them that began this walk down the isle. We are simply providing them with thier own words and using it to show how stupid it is that they spew this stuff.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:03 amthe Clinton administration who had 5,000+ troops die - so sad…
huh?????
March 20th, 2007 at 11:03 amDon’t pick and choose? You pick out the number of 5,000 deaths durning Clinton’s 8 years but neglect to show that the number encompasses all deaths in the military, including natural deaths. How about stating the deaths during the current administration. I’ll hunt for it also and get back to you sadsack.
How about the cut and run Reagan did after Beruit? Something tells me you didn’t push your chest out with pride at that time.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:03 amTroll: “I’m not a real attorney, I just play one on TP.”
March 20th, 2007 at 11:03 amhowsad..”urthermore, I seem to remember the Clinton White House fighting hard a Republican control Congress in the 1990s to not allow members of their White HOuse testify.”
The operative words here are “I seem to remember”. Of course you “seem to remember”, it was Clinton and it’s always “Clinton did it!”. If what you say is true, it should not be hard for you to do a Google search and come up with the facts. Don’t accuse TP of being 100% dishonest when you have no facts on your side. If you have facts, then you can make your accusation.
Gawd…these trolls are so stupid. Do you think any of them even know how to use Google?
March 20th, 2007 at 11:04 am33 on 31. Yes.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:04 amWhat’s up with that?
Reagan destroyed you Liberals,
All you need to do is look into the Clinton White House scandals and you will find countless times that the Clinton White House argued that his staffers didn’t have to testify infront of a Republican controlled Congress….and it went Clinton’s way.
But for the sake of arguement, during my lunch time, I will look for a case and put it up. In the mean time, I am sure you are also capable of doing your research, right?
or like a good liberal do you want free education?
March 20th, 2007 at 11:05 amAnd You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid, (yeah, Reagan was so stupid he ended the Cold War)Comment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 10:56 am
Ended the cold war. The Soviets were waving a white flag and Reagan refused to see it. They wanted the war over but Reagan couldn’t keep giving money to weapons manufacturer if he admitted the war was over.
We can thank Regan for all those extra nuclear weapons that were built by the Soviets and us because he wanted to keep playing war games.
Ended the cold war indeed.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:07 amThanks, Shane. As usual, the facts are on our side.
Looks like howsad is running off. Just like Tom “Never Surrender” Delay.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:08 amHowsad,
You seem bent on arguing legalities.
How about Patrick Fitzgerald? Would you support him for AG?
No bullshit, please. Just answer the question.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:08 amOver 6000 Americans have died while The Dimness has misruled,a former Halliburton exec practically shoved business to his old company,Katrina, etc.etc.etc. The fact that HowSad’s name is most appropiate for blinded Bushites is the truth he/she/it has spewed.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:08 amHey, isn’t Reagan the guy who illegally sold arms to Iran? Yes, yes, he is.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:09 amI don’t care for this reasoning, its the same type they use to justify warrantless wiretaps.
Comment by erock — March 20, 2007 @ 10:42 am
It isn’t the same. There is evidence of crimes. There is probable cause. I didn’t say anything about supporting subpoenas in the absence of probable cause. But thanks for bringing it up, it is an important point.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:09 am#51 on #33. The reason their verbal jujitsu works: if you ignore it, you’re on the mat; if you respond to it, you’re on the mat. Need another tactic.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:10 amShane,
you keep on believing the Liberal propaganda and your brain will turn to jello…..
I am sorry that Reagan destroyed you Liberals and destroyed the Communist regimes that most of you Liberals supported, admired and adored.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:12 am“All you need to do is look into the Clinton White House scandals and you will find countless times that the Clinton White House argued that his staffers didn’t have to testify infront of a Republican controlled Congress….and it went Clinton’s way.” howsad…
Facts, man, facts. Stop posting this drivel unless you have facts. Here’s a hint. Go to Google and enter something like “Clinton staffers refuse to testify” or something like that. And then when you find the facts, post the link to what you found here.
Unless you can come up with facts and stop pontificating your opinions or talking points, just STFU!
March 20th, 2007 at 11:12 amComment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 10:53 am
I haven’t seen this particular troll moniker, but this troll sounds mighty familiar. Sounds like another party operative, if you ask me. I don’t see Jake around these parts anywhere right now.
Howsad, recycling the same dead talking points here under a different name isn’t going to work. It just looks desperate. Your guys are on the ropes.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:13 amComment by shane — March 20, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Yes, shane, I too get a good laugh every time I hear a Kool-Aid swiller try to give Reagan credit for ending the Cold War. ^_^
March 20th, 2007 at 11:13 am#12 howsad
please, please, please read up on Constitutional Law!!!!
The Executive Branch has every single right to not testify before Congress!
Seperations of Powers people!
Explain what you think “Separation of Powers” means and see if you can find it defined in the Constitution. If you read carefully, you might learn that it means the exact opposite of what you think it means. If Congress were doing the bidding of the president, instead of being independent, that would go against a separation of powers. If the judicial branch were controlled by the president, that would go against a separation of powers. For one branch to ‘check’ and ‘balance’ another is to uphold a separation of powers.
If Congress had the ability to force the Executive Branch to testify at its whims our government would be controlled by one of its Branches and not all three.
If the executive branch were immune from congressional oversight and inquiry, the branches would not be equal. Who’s going to save us from a tyrant then? The kind of government you think we have would be perfect for another Hitler to take over. It’s not the way we do things here. It’s not the way the founding fathers set this thing up for us. And, you’re not going to change it. Bush has taken this government as far along the path to dictatorship as he’s going to. We had an election. The people spoke. And the people said it’s time to pull in the reins on this maniac. Congress is doing exactly what it’s supposed to now.
sorry Thinkprogress, but like most of the time, you are 100% wrong.
Prove it.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:14 amTurd-Blossum on camera under oath lying about his and others involvement.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:15 amI think . . . . yes . . . . they could put it on fox and I believe I would still tune in.
I got well down into the list of comments before I began to see people feeding the trolls again. I thought for a moment there that people had wised up, and could enjoy the panic that sets in in a troll’s “mind” when he’s being completely ignored.
Pointing out the stupidity of the troll arguments is fun at times, but it does tend to sidetrack any real discussion because trolls never learn, and never concede a point. Ever.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:16 amWhen Bush and his administration refuse to give up power on January 2008 I will believe your hateful rants against them . until then please stop with the ridiculous and embarrasing yourself comments like, “Bush is a dictator…
Comment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Now I’m assuming HOWSAD is the name your mother gave you.
How dare you come to this site and tell us what we can say or think or post. Who do you think you are and where do you get the nerve to come here and dictate policy. This site isn’t for asswipes like you its for progressived. Not for backward, back woods types who believe what’s easiest for them to swallow.
The fact that you’ve been wrong is I’m sure scary for you but frankly, take it somewhere else.
You want to bully people and tell them what to say you better go to some neocon puppet site and stroke them into believing the same old lies cause that dog won’t hunt around here.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:17 am#56, #64 — dog-walker, please read #51 and #63
March 20th, 2007 at 11:17 am5,000 Troops died while Clinton was in office? DOcumentation please…
March 20th, 2007 at 11:18 amOr are you coutning veterans who passed away years after their sevice was completed? Is your hatred of Clinton so fierce and so blinding that you can’t even make up remotely beleiveable lies?
#66 Kate Henry
March 20th, 2007 at 11:19 am*stands up clapping*
I second that motion.
you keep on believing the Liberal propaganda and your brain will turn to jello…..
Comment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 11:12 am
Tough talk, howsad, but everyone can see through the false bravado of a dead end loser. It’s the tears of a clown.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:19 amhowsad, No one in the GOP hated Clinton did they. No you are such a hypocrite!
March 20th, 2007 at 11:19 amhowsad
I thought you said you were “out to lunch”?
Yeah, right, it’s us liberals and progressives who have loved regimes that suppress individual rights, suppress media criticism, attempt to colonize other countries, and bankrupt their own country with the self-serving agenda of its dictatorial leader. If you can’t see the Bush Administration in this description, you are most assuredly “out to lunch”.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:19 amyou liberals are such hateful whiners…..
it is like crying over Gen. Pace’s comments, yet you don’t speak about who put into place the don’t ask, don’t tell policy in the military….who did it LIbbies, who?
Your god, President Pinochio Clinton. remember that Libbies? but somehow you hateful liberals put it on Republicans.
whiners, whiners, whiners.
Democrats and Liberals were silent when Clinton used the Enchelon program to spy on Americans.
Democrats and Liberals were silent when under Clinton 5,000+ troops died in battles around the world.
Democrats and Liberals were silent in 1993 when the first WTC was attacked.
Democrats and Liberals were silent when Clinton was obstruction justice.
Democrats and Liberals were silent when Clinton gave no-bid contracts to Halliburton and other so called war profeting companies.
Democrats and Liberals were silent when Clinton was caught telling Monica Lewnsky how to testify in court.
Democrats and Liberals were silent when Clinton was caught selling state secrets to China.
Democrats and Liberals were silent when our educaiton under Clinton tanked.
under Clinton, you Liberals saw no scandals, now you see all types of scandals.
I am sorry that your god Clinton was such a waste of a President.
I am sorry that despite you Liberals controlling Congress, you guys are so full of hate.
I mean, you Liberals have been whinning and complaning about one party having control of all branches of our government, right? well, if a Democrat wins in 2008 aren’t you guys going to control all of our government? so by the nature of your own arguments, complaining that one party controll of Congress and the White House is bad, all of you should be against voting for a Democrat President, right?
oh, no I forgot, you guys don’t mind when the Democrats do it, you just mind it when Republicans do it. I forgot.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:21 amCRS also notes that although “White House aides do not testify
BTW, CRS used to be called the legislative services division. They changed the name in the 1970s because it abbreviated as LSD.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:22 amSadsack is just another pimple on my ass. He is so completely scared that the dream of an eternal Republican domination has faltered in less time than the Third Riech. He’s probably got a cyanide capsule hidden in a tooth right now but he’ll keep marching to the tune of the Rovinator until the walls come crumbling down and then “crunch” goes the capsule.
Sadsack is nothing more than the disgusting odor when your in a crowded room. As bad as it/he is it will go away when the fresh air is allowed to enter.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:23 amPLC, yes, the bloviating whiny howbitter IS out to lunch. Apparently permanently.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:25 amTwo concepts, inexorably intertwined.
Separation of Powers/Checks and Balances.
shane, shane….stop foaming at the mouth….grab something and clean your mouth…
now little shane….I have to right to say whatever the heck I want under the United States Constitution I can tell each and everyone of you what to say or not to say….it is yoru choice to do it or not.
why do you want to silence my right to tell yout o shut-up? I thought you liberals loved freedom of speech?
thanks for proving my point that you liberals only love freedom of speech when it agrees with your hateful speech.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:26 amTroll: “I’m not a real attorney, I just play one on TP.â€
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — March 20, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Good one - really good one.
Oh and howreally sad - why don’t you watch the film “Bush’s Brain” and get back to us on how Rover is just misunderstood. Or you could contact Max Cleland, a true American Hero, and see how he was smeared by KKK Rove while he was stealing Cleland’s Senate seat.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:26 amEvil is evil. The end doesn’t justify the means. And Rove’s place in hell is reserved for him.
#79 = a classic temper tantrum, a sustained and loud whine intended to annoy the adult for setting limits
howsad, go to time-out before you get lunch. Someone at TP will tell you when you can get out.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:27 amhowsad is a Repuke troll. He lives under a bridge and screws his sister.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:27 amThe term “separation of powers” is a fabrication. There is no such statement in the Constitution. Simply said, the congress represents the people, drafting laws to protect and assist the populace, and the president (executive) executes the administration of laws. Obviously the people, through their representatives, have a right to receive testimony from the executive as to how the laws are executed.
Right is right. It doesn’t matter one whit what Clinton staffers did or didn’t do. This is a nation of laws, a democracy, not a nation of Clinton staffers.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:27 amshane and tripmaster talking about Kool-aid drinkers…..you two have been drinkingn Kool-Aid from the left so much that you deny it even exists, right?
put down your drinks and start thinking on your own, stop your blind following of the left….think on your own.
Shane you constantly spew left wing talking points. You are constantly spewing DNC talking points and you talk about righties drinking Kool-Aid?
wow….you Libbies do give me a good laugh.
keep on amusing me.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:28 am#18
Howsad,
What it is like is that you continually lie to yourself to justify your blind devotion to this administration. How sad indeed. Tell me, what exactly would it take for you to not be a slavish drone trying to spin everything in Bush’s favor?
March 20th, 2007 at 11:29 amI wonder what would happen to the military if all those terrible gays started telling and asking and asking to be removed from service. What would happen to the military then? Maybe 7% of the military is gay. That would really cut into this administrations plans.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:29 amI see the inbred redneck Repuke troll is whining “Clinton did it too!”
That doesn’t make it right for Chimpy to do it.
You Repukes need to send your moral compass into the shop for repairs.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:29 amTom3,
thanks for showing the typical liberal hate for anyone that disagrees with them…
what happened to you Liberals demanding respect to different point of views?
Oh I forgot, it only applies to accepting lefties and not righties….my bad, forgot you guys are completly intolerant of anyone that disagrees with your morals and worldview. so much for Liberals being open minded and compassionate.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:31 amThanks Don Bacon for restoring some sense of calm. We are a nation of laws and will push to continue that way.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:32 amTweedster,
I wouldln’t know, but you should know….why don’t you tell me
What it is like is that you continually lie to yourself to justify your blind devotion to Democrats and Liberlas. How sad indeed. Tell me, what exactly would it take for you to not be a slavish drone trying to spin everything against Bush and for Democrats and Liberals? don’t know, but you should know…you tell me…
March 20th, 2007 at 11:32 amWhat’s the problem with Congress asking the Bush administration folks to have a little chat about things on the record?
During the 5 1/2 years when no one was asking them for an explanation of anything they did, it didn’t turn out so well.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:33 amQuick!!! republican lead copngress, write a new law that shield white house aids from going before congress. Wait!!! republicans are no longer in charge. Sorry chimp can’t help ya.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:33 amhellinabucket….
I could careless if gays serve or not in the military. It is their choice if they want ot or not. the point is that it was the Democrats and Liberals god, Clinton who implemented the don’t ask don’t tell policy…
c’mon libbies, can’t face the truth about your god?
March 20th, 2007 at 11:33 amStupid Repuke troll. He marches in lockstep with his fellow inbreds.
And he assumes we all march in lockstep too, behind the Clintons.
But anybody who is actually LITERATE can see that we librrruls do not agree all the time. Hell, we argue with each other almost as much as we argue with the Repukes.
That’s because Liberals are real Americans, not traitorous Republiborg drones.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:35 am#79 — This post is the work of someone coming unglued.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:36 amThe term “separation of powers†is a fabrication.
Comment by Don Bacon
“Fabrication” is not the best term. I would call it a descriptive “construct”. While the phrase “separation of powers” is not explicity used in the Constitution, it seems hard to argue that the articles and their delineation of what governmental powers are vested where are not in themselves an act of “separation of powers”.
Otherwise, I agree with your post emphatically.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:37 amBut for the sake of arguement, during my lunch time, I will look for a case and put it up. In the mean time, I am sure you are also capable of doing your research, right?
or like a good liberal do you want free education?
Comment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 11:05 am
You’ve been here all morning spewing venom.
And now you say when you go to lunch you will research the issue. So you are working on somebody’s clock doing this. And if you’re not a paid troll, working at a computer for neocons, you’re stealing from your employer. Typical neocon you want your social programs but you don’t want anybody else to have theirs. Your employers is paying into Social Security for a job your obviously not doing. So why don’t you just give up your SS since your so agains social programs.
And then you tell us about liberals wanting free education. Which by the way genius, I BELIEVE, is guaranteed in the constitution.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:37 amHas the nutjob answered the question yet about the 5,000 troops? I don’t think so. So how about it, Nutjub? Who are these 5,000 troops killed under Clinton? When and where did that happen?
March 20th, 2007 at 11:38 amI suggest that people STOP replying to howsad!
This person is providing nothing but insults to people about how the “liberals” this and that! It is not here to debate, they are here to disrupt.
Like Jake, just ignore it!
I have YET to see anything posted by this bozo thta provides any substance or support for ANYTHING that it says.
Stop allowing it to pull you into commenting on it’s posts. Just let it babble without response, and soon enought it will go away.
No since in playing the typical Republican 3 year old tripe with it!
March 20th, 2007 at 11:38 am#79 howsad
Yeah, you’re all out of ammo now. All you’ve got left is nutty extreme right name-calling. You don’t want to have a discussion. So, just go away.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:38 amKarl’s mother committed suicide. Fill in the blanks. He recieved some negative messages from that incident.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:38 amThe administration’s problem is that they know only how to lie. Congress may provide “the dead end street” that awaits bushies. Oh, unless joe lieberrman can get georgie to bomb Iran inorder to change the subject.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:39 am#97 = “Look, over there! Clinton did something you really don’t like. Don’t you want to look at that instead of what Bush is doing now? Clinton was a bad man! Look!”
Pathetic.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:39 amYeah, but Podesta et al. testified about having sex with Clinton, right? That’s a whole different ball of wax.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:39 amHowsad is far too stupid and out of control to be a paid troll. Probably a Bill O’Reilly fan.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:40 amshane….bwahahaha!!!
stop whinning and crying about a Republican spewing venom….I take it you could careless about Tom3 true venom spewing against a fellow citizen he disagrees with.
and look at the venom you are spewing….
and sorry shane, please put up where in the Constitution you cann find the guarantee to a free education…
wow, you keep on making things up…..
March 20th, 2007 at 11:40 amComment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 11:21 am
A textbook case of COD (Clinton Obsessive Disorder).
Every day across our great nation more and more Kool-Aid swillers fall prey to this dread disease. Watching their beloved Chimpy distinguish himself as the worst President ever drives them to distraction, causing them to fixate on one on which they can persuade their twisted minds to blame for all the world’s ills: Bubba.
If left untreated, victims of COD will continue to make fools of themselves on public message boards, continually changing nicknames in a vain attempt to escape humiliation. Eventually, in the end stages of the disease, the afflicted will cease changing nicks and accept his or her new, pitiable status as a parody troll.
Fortunately, there is hope. For only pennies a day, less than the price of a cup of coffee, you can help COD sufferers like howsad recover most of their former functionality…enough to get by in the world. Sadly, the illness, as well as the underlying Kool-Aid addiction, can leave permanent damage. These poor souls need all the help we can give.
The time is now to reach out to these poor benighted fools. Every moment we waste, the afflicted slide deeper into the nightmare that is COD. Won’t you give?
*Paid for by the TMM Foundation
March 20th, 2007 at 11:40 amfor the Treatment of Clinton Obsessive Disorder.
VP Cheney must be told to appear before Congress, and testify under oath, and if he refuses to do so, then that is grounds for his removal.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:40 amlet’s hear this again!
from Publicus:
Haldeman.
Erlichman.
Dean.
Mitchell.
They ALL testified…
March 20th, 2007 at 11:40 amI agree with # 71 . Remember if you mud wrestle with a pig, you both will get dirty, but only the pig will like it.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:40 amwhen it comes to the idiot trolls my philosophy has always been
“ Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk
PatrioticLiberalsChristina…
are you honestly complaining about a made up phrase from the Constitution?
shall we talk the made up phrase that can’t be foudn anywhere in the Constitution that you Liberals love to spew….”Seperation of Church and State.”
This is no where to be found anywhere in the Constitution, ye tyou Liberals spew it as if it was your gods word. When it fact it is found one time in a pretty lengthy letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
In now way shape or form do I want congress to pass laws forcing me to follow a religion, but please Liberals don’t whine about made up phrases in teh Constitution when you liberals are the first ones to do it.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:42 amhowsad, you deserve to get venom spewed at you.
You support the criminal Chimpy regime. You support torture, treason and lying to start wars. You support dismantling our legal system. You support the trashing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
If you don’t like getting your ass kicked, get the hell out of here.
Stupid Repuke dumbass. Your parents were siblings.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:45 amI suggest that people STOP replying to howsad! This person is providing nothing but insults to people about how the “liberals†this and that! It is not here to debate, they are here to disrupt. Comment by RemoveBush
I sometimes am unsure when to stop replying to our trolls. I think I’m going to develop my own set of guidelines. Something like giving a troll three posts to demonstrate a willingness to listen and debate, and when it fails to do so, give myself two posts to purely whack a troll. Then it’s time to ignore.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:45 amOn the whole issue of trolls, there are times when it’s a good thing to engage them. I think it’s educational for progressives to see what the Republican talking points are and how they can be picked apart. It helps people to have facts and arguments at their fingertips. But, when you get one of these trolls who just will not stop repeating the same nonsense no matter how many times you logically and factually refute it, ultimately there’s no point in even responding to them. It’s hard to tell, sometimes, if a particular troll is really incapable of reason or just slow to comprehend, so it’s hard to tell when to break it off.
I think howsad is just impervious to reason. Howsad is that.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:46 amhowsad goes from dumb to dumber.
“Seperation of Church and State” was a phrase Jefferson used to describe the Establishment Clause.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
howsad is now puking both Repuke talking points and Religious Reich talking points. Does he get them from the same website?
March 20th, 2007 at 11:47 amtripmonkey,
I guess you are as dumb as much Libeals….I guess you don’t get it.
Let me try to dumb it down for you….
The same Democrats and Liberals that scream, yell and whine about things that Bush does now, could careless when clintond id the same things in the 1990s. It is NOT about Clinton did it, so it ok for Bush to do it, rather….why didn’t you scream and cry and whine when Clintond did the exact same thing in the 1990s. get it? probably too slow to get it.
and shall we talk about Bush Derangement Syndrome. It is rampant in here.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:48 amwhy do you want to silence my right to tell yout o shut-up? I thought you liberals loved freedom of speech?
Comment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 11:26 am
Love freedom of speech, HATE stupidity. Nobody’s kicked you off the board what are you whining about now. You are starting to sound alot like Jake now. Are you that old impotent fart again? Pretending to be an attorney today and a doctor yesterday.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:48 amYou can say whatever you want and I can answer you back. You can talk til you’re blue in the face.
That way it will match your b@lls old fart.
howsad - your whole ideological dog and pony show is going down in flames, and we’re all enjoying it very, very much.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:50 amHey “howsad” you are “Sad”. The republican response to everything this administration does that is wrong (i.e. every fv#king thing).”Well Clinton did it”. grow the f*&^ up and start taking accountability for your actions. That’s what you wnated Clinton to do right???
March 20th, 2007 at 11:51 am“shall we talk the made up phrase that can’t be foudn anywhere in the Constitution that you Liberals love to spew….â€Seperation of Church and State.â€
This is no where to be found anywhere in the Constitution, ye tyou Liberals spew it as if it was your gods word. When it fact it is found one time in a pretty lengthy letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
In now way shape or form do I want congress to pass laws forcing me to follow a religion, but please Liberals don’t whine about made up phrases in teh Constitution when you liberals are the first ones to do it.
Comment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 11:42 am‘
I have to ignore my plea for just this……..
Hey moron……. It may not be in the Constitution, but the FOUNDERS and WRITERS of the Constitution wrote about it and stated what it meant.
Here is YOUR FREE education!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Separation_of_church_and_state
History of the term
The phrase “separation of church and state” is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, he writes: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”[2]
Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of “total separation of the church from the state” (1819 letter to Robert Walsh). “Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States,” Madison wrote, and he declared, “practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States” (1811 letter to Baptist Churches). This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which was originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison. The Declaration guarantees that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:51 amBut Bush did it….
March 20th, 2007 at 11:51 am“I think howsad is just impervious to reason. Howsad is that.” - Comment by chimpeach
Yes, he IS impervious to reason, facts, the truth…anything that does not fit with his Chimpyloving Repuke Bizarro Worldview.
These Repukes live in an alternative universe of their own construction. They have their own media to reinforce their imaginary reality.
Repukes do not believe in the concept of “objective reality”, the idea that the same reality exists for everyone and that it is objective and factual.
Repukes have had a psychotic break with reality and are mentally ill.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:52 amI haven’t seen this particular troll moniker, but this troll sounds mighty familiar. Sounds like another party operative, if you ask me. I don’t see Jake around these parts anywhere right now. Comment by VerbalKint
You know, I was just thinking the same thing. Also:
Democrats and Liberals were silent when our educaiton under Clinton tanked. Comment by howsad
No, just howsad’s school. Think about what you type before you just blindly troll the blog, man.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:52 amPatrioticLiberalChristina…
hahaha….typical of you liberals, you can’t take the heat so you throw out the typical mindless command to your brainless troops….”ignore the republican troll…”
the sad part is that you Liberals do honestly believe that you can think by yourselves.
If you aren’t such a “Liberal” as you say….why do you use it on your forum name?
wow…thanks for the laughs…..
PatrioticLiberalChristina and Shane….do you condone Tom3 hateful, venomous rants?
I mean you guys cry over what I say, why not show how honest, fair, etc you liberals are and take on Tom3 for his hateful remarks towards me?
Will you liberals stand up for justice and fairness, or is it all talk, like always….
prove me wrong….
and once again, I will join your chorus of Bush being a dictator when on January 2008 he refuses to step down from office, ok?
March 20th, 2007 at 11:52 amwell, actually it is January 2009, not 2008…
So, when Bush refuses to step out of office on January 2009 I will join the liberal whackos and I will call Bush a dictator.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:53 amHear that? The sound of a scared Republican administration.
They have never been the tough, strong people they claim.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:53 amI, for one, am very happy to see that howsad (how sad it is) is a) alone here and b) completely desparate, resorting to lies and little 4th-grade arguments to bolster his treason and hatred of America and democracy. It shows how close we are to the truth and the removal and trial of this administration. For all of Clinton’s faults, there was never a criminal case that could be made against him, as he broke no laws, inspite of a $70 million Republican campaign against him. Under the very same circumstances, there isn’t a single member of this administration who could avoid life in prison or execution for the treason. I think it’s important that we continue to poke it with a sharp stick, as it will eventually implode and perhaps even kill itself (although it’s very unlikely that howsad has the courage to do that, since it’s not in Iraq fighting for its glorious leader). It is very encouraging for the USA that all the Right has left is this sad spectacle of lies and hysteria. How Sad.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:53 amShane you constantly spew left wing talking points. You are constantly spewing DNC talking points and you talk about righties drinking Kool-Aid?Comment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 11:28 am
Yeah EINSTEIN that’s why I’m on a progressive site. If I wanted to spew neocon lies I would at least be able to find the right place to do it.
Now take both hands, try to find d@ck, and maybe you’ll start thinking clearly.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:53 amtom baker….
Don’t worry, I also enjoy the ideological dog and pony show that you Liberals constantly put up on websites like thinkprogress.org….
March 20th, 2007 at 11:54 amI think the WH should allow any and all aides to testify before congress. Then the aides should pull a Hillary — “I don’t recall” should be the answer to every single question.
Then the American people will see that all this investigation is just a big sideshow, accomplishing nothing while the nation stands still. Then we’ll see the smugness wiped off the face of porky pig Leahy.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:55 amJanuary 2009.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:55 amhowsad, how do you KNOW that none of us were complaining about Clinton TEN YEARS AGO? You don’t. So you’re a liar.
Actually, I complained a LOT about Clinton. I’m a Union Democrat and I don’t like the Clintons’ centrist “New Democrat” DLC crap. I call them DINOs or Democrats In Name Only.
Again, you are assuming the fallacy that everyone on the left marches in lockstep just because all you Reich Wingnuts do the goose step.
STupid Repuke.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:56 amshane…
so, are you saying that you don’t want to hear or read points of views that are different from yours? so tolerant and open minded of you liberal.
kind of like howard dean who admitted to not reading anything that doesn’t agree with him?
wow…..
March 20th, 2007 at 11:56 am“and once again, I will join your chorus of Bush being a dictator when on January 2008 he refuses to step down from office, ok?
Comment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 11:52 am”
You can’t be belived! Just like ALL, rather MOST, Republicans….. Just look at Oliely….. He said that if there were no WMD’s found in IRAQ he would appologize to the country.
We are still waiting for his appology!!!!!
Go soak your head in Bush’s bile! You might want to ask Bush to open his mouth and breath so you can get some light and air, since your head is so far up his arse!
March 20th, 2007 at 11:57 amI think PLC makes a good point. After debunking and parrying the absurd, let it howl in an empty forest.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:57 amThis is great. So, if the next Congress subpoenas the next Democratic President and Vice President to testify each and every day of their term, that’s fine now too?
March 20th, 2007 at 11:57 am92. Comment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Oooh - answering every post that has JAKE written all over it.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:57 amYou embarrassed your old sorry ass into changing names didn’t you Joke. Just because everybody was saying to go jake yourself you ran and hid behind a new name. Wimp.
howsad, your points of view are Repuke talking points.
They are not legitimate viewpoints and do not deserve any attention.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:58 amIt is important to respond to trolls when they post administration talking points, if they are doing it calmly, like Jake and RR for example. When someone starts sounding like a deranged freak, however, then they probably should be ignored. Examples that come to mind are MA, Flaco, Firehead, and Howsad. But sometimes the temptation to play with the trolls is simply too much.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:58 amTom3:
Did you complaint about Clinton (or even Carter) firing U.S. Attorneys for political reasons?
March 20th, 2007 at 11:58 amhowsad sez:
So sad…the terminal stages of COD are so debilitating…
howsad, when you manage to blink the tears of impotent rage from your eyes and read this reply, here’s two questions for you:
1) How exactly do you know that we all cheered Clinton on when he was in office?
2) Who’s in office NOW?
We can help you, howsad…but only if you want to be helped.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:59 amI hope Congress continues to press for subpoenas for members of the Bush Administration and to seek the truth. If the White House attempts to squash these subpoenas, fine. The Court can then interpret. Most importantly, it will be a transparent process all Americans can witness and respond to. So refreshing from the secrecy of the Bush Administration.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:00 pmwhat can a reasonable person say to these trolls? Seriously…
March 20th, 2007 at 12:00 pmI tend to lump Bushites into the same basket with Neo-Nazis and KKK members - except those groups have the guts to admit their true agenda.
This is great. So, if the next Congress subpoenas the next Democratic President and Vice President to testify each and every day of their term, that’s fine now too?
Comment by Jake — March 20, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic straw man argument.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:02 pmronjazz dead on. howsad thumbs thru his talking points ignoring the facts that there is no precedent and the public is demanding Rove testify. I did notice he’s the lone sadsack. I’m thinking he’s on the M side of S&M.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:02 pmYeah, but Podesta et al. testified about having sex with Clinton, right? That’s a whole different ball of wax.
Comment by ignoreland — March 20, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Hey I’m a 53 year old very happily married woman with a 12 year old child and I’d have sex with Bill given the opportunity. A man should not be held responsible because he’s so hot women chase him.
And Hillary should be grateful for the time she gets too.
God I really am a librull.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:03 pmJake, as far as I know, neither Clinton nor Carter fired any US Attorneys for political reasons. I do not remember any allegations made about Clinton regarding this during his two terms of offic.e
Clinton did appoint new ones at the beginning of his first term, but this is legal and aboveboard. Many presidents have done this.
The “Clinton did it too” argument is specious. Bogus. Bullshit.
Two wrongs do not make a right, especially in the legal system.
This is not about ten years ago, this is about what Chimpy is doing right now.
Jake, you’e puking up Repuke talking points. Do you have a single original thought in your head?
March 20th, 2007 at 12:04 pmshane:
I am not posting as “howsad”.
complaint = complain
March 20th, 2007 at 12:04 pmWell, Rerun is back! Just in time to take over for our increasingly ignored troll on this thread. The following are old troll castings and probably should have the quick challenge, whack, and ignore treatment.
This is great. So, if the next Congress subpoenas the next Democratic President and Vice President to testify each and every day of their term, that’s fine now too?
Did you complaint about Clinton (or even Carter) firing U.S. Attorneys for political reasons?
Comments by Jake
March 20th, 2007 at 12:05 pmVerbalKint:
Just testing how far this new standard goes.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:05 pm….you think the trollies are hysterical now, just wait til the impeachment is under way!!!
March 20th, 2007 at 12:05 pm“Two wrongs don’t make a right” but “a hundred wrongs do make a neocon rightwinger.”
March 20th, 2007 at 12:08 pmHowsad isn’t Jake. Too crazy, too out of control.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:10 pmyou have to justify your hate for this admininstration.
Comment by howsad #18
No trumped up “justification” needed:
Iraq/mass murder
Halliburton/waste/corruption
domestic spying
eliminating habaeus corpus
torture
pedophilia
stealing elections
Gulf coast/Katrina debacle/incompetence
…I could go on…
…but what would be the point…
…you’re STILL going to continue to pray to Bushiva and L’il Dick…
…knowing they’re false gods…
…that is the way of you inbreds…
March 20th, 2007 at 12:10 pmJake….this kool aid drinkers on the left, who claim to supposedly be individual thinkers and open minded and tolerant will only insult you and spew venomo at you.
they are the last thing from being honest, fair, free thinkers, open minded, tolerant, etc.
look at poor shane, thinking that you and I are the same person. Speaks to the paranoia from the left.
Bush derangement syndrom is rampant in here.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:11 pm#142 Tom3
howsad, your points of view are Repuke talking points.
With that guy, I don’t think it’s even as sophisticated as “talking points”. I think he’s got a Repuke Magnetic Poetry set. He grabs a handful of words and throws them up on the refrigerator door: “liberal…hate…whiner…Clinton…liberals…hateful…dumb…lie…liberals”
It’s all the same stuff. He just rearranges them for each post.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:12 pmTom3:
Two wrongs don’t make a right. I think firing U.S. Attorneys is well within the right of ANY President. But, perhaps you should start reading about Carter and David Marston though:
http://www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,945941,00.html
PLC:
Or, you could simply answer the question.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:12 pm#151 Tom3, this has been explained to Jake many times over the past weeks, complete with documentation. For whatever reason, he is determined to keep recycling this dead talking point.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:13 pmTom Baker….
do you dream and masturbate to a Bush impeachment?
wow, Bush Derangement Syndrome in full show here…..
March 20th, 2007 at 12:14 pmMeh - all this jabber from the trolls is making it too hard to carry on a discussion - I’ll catch you guys later.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:14 pmHowsad is an angry, disturbed dead ender in its last throes, making a disgusting little spectacle of itself.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:15 pmChimpeach,
With someone like you, I don’t think it’s even as sophisticated as “talking pointsâ€. I think he’s got a Democrat/Liberal Magnetic Poetry set. He grabs a handful of words and throws them up on the refrigerator door: “Conservative…hate…whiner…Bush…Conservative…hateful…dumb…lie…Repukeâ€
amazing how it fits most liberals on thinkprogress.org to a T.
Chimpeach, you know you can get psychological help for your Bush Derangement Syndrome. When Kerry lost in 2004 psychiatrist around the USA made a killing out of pathetic, weak Democrats and Liberals who couldn’t take it. I am sure they can help you too.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:17 pmPoor little Howsad. He stomps his feet, gets his little fists in a ball and, tears in his little eyes, shouts at the heavens, “leave my dear leader alone! Sure, Clinton’s aides had to testify before congress. But, that was different, you see, because Clinton was a democrat and he wasn’t MY dear leader! There’s a different set of rules for my dear leader!”
And, poor little Jake is back with his standard “did you complain when Clinton did it” sob story.
And, the “hate.” Oh, the “hate.” It just attacks the delecate sensibilities of these good citizens. And, after the right wing treated Clinton with such class and grace. Poor babies. They’re just so deeply troubled that anyone could possibly bring accountability to their dear leader. They’re deeply outraged that anyone could possibly apply the same rules Clinton labored under to their dear leader. Accountability! That’s for the other guys, right little men?
March 20th, 2007 at 12:20 pmverbalkint…
amazing how you Liberals become so hateful when someone dares come in and write a different point of view on politics than what you believe.
Is this how you guys show tolerance and open mindess to different point of views? I mean you Liberals certainly throw this around all the time, right? You guys claim to carry the flag of tolerance and open mindness…so why don’t you guys start proving how open minded you guys are to different point of views.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:21 pmPLC:
Or, you could simply answer the question.
Comment by Jake
Or, you could simply accept the answers already supplied to you ad nauseum. Or you could simply ask less loaded questions. Or you could just simply go away.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:22 pmHowsad, p