Tony Snow Flip-Flops On Executive Privilege
Tony Snow Flip-Flops On Executive Privilege
President Bush said yesterday he would “absolutely” fight to prevent Karl Rove and other senior officials from testifying under oath about the U.S. Attorney purge. Tony Snow explained the position to National Review’s Byron York:
I asked whether the president was perhaps overly confrontational at this stage of the game. “I don’t think it’s confrontational,” Snow said. “We feel pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument.” …
The White House, Snow said, is determined to avoid “hearings or the trappings of hearings” when White House officials talk to Congress. “They’re looking for hands up, cameras on,” Snow said of Democrats. “They’re talking about a show trial.”
How times have changed. As Glenn Greenwald first noted, Snow had a much different view of executive privilege in 1998, when President Clinton was using it to resist having his aides testify in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky saga. On 3/29/98, Snow published an op-ed titled, “Executive Privilege is a Dodge”:
Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.
One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.
Snow shouldn’t feel “pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument” because it’s pretty clear there isn’t one. The leading case on executive privilege is United States v. Nixon, where the Supreme Court found that executive privilege is sharply limited:
The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
HEAD ON!!! HEAD ON!!! HEAD ON!!!
March 21st, 2007 at 10:09 amExecutive Privilege, just like the legality of breaking the wiretapping laws, as okayed by Dingaling Gonzo would be difficult for Tony Snow to articulate….because it is the height of hypocrisy and they’re hanging Snowjob Tony out to dry just like his predecessor, Scottie.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:11 amShow me the clause in the Constitution that deals with “executive privilege” and then I’ll start listening to the White House arguments.
Where’s the “Clinton did it chorus” now? Clinton testified, under oath. Shouldn’t Bush be willing to do the same?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:11 amthe people will finally put an abrupt end to Bush’s Monarchy now that he’s become confrontation with the people who pay his salary! Bush’s Watergate has arrived….add to Lawyergate the new kid on the scandal block, HookerGate and it’s clear that this house of cards is tumbling down….and fast.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:12 amOh you poor thinkprogress.org…..
the Clinton administration used the Executive Privilage argument to refuse subpoenas from Congress when it came to Janet Reno and other staff members of the Clinton administration.
I am wondering if the creators of thinkprogress.org are such ill-informed babies or such a bunch of liars by ommissions.
During the Clinton administration it was the left that went all out, along with the media to protect Janet Reno from testifying under oath infront of Congress.
If you are going to put a flip-flop from Tony Snow when he was a commentator, make sure you also put the flip-flop from the Democrats when they defended Clinton using Executive Privilage to fight subpeonas from a Republican controlled congress.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:13 amoh my goodness you liberals….no Democrat or liberal was calling on Clinton to show them the clause were it says, “Excutive Privilage” when he used it.
amazing the hypocrisy from the left. it is never ending.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:14 am“U.S. v. Nixon” — perfect. That is the same case I cited on TP on Monday when I pointed out (to howsad, who never found a case to refute it) that separation of powers is not absolute.
In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, where the ground for asserting privilege is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. Going on to say, “the Constitution enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.â€
Let’s see how these “honorable public servants” respond under oath. Of course, by “honorable,” Bush means loyal and lying.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:16 amExecutive Privilege 101, For Lefties
Town Hall ^ | Hugh Hewitt
Executive Privilege 101, For Lefties Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:20 AM
Some lefties are e-mailing me quotes about “executive privilege” from the years of the Clinton investigations, quotes from leading conservative voices like Tony Snow.
What the lefties don’t seem to realize is that U.S. v. Nixon concerned claims of executive privilege made against demands for evidence in a criminal proceeding, and that Clinton’s many executive privilege claims –including novel ones such as the claim that Secret Service agents could not be questioned– were also made and defeated in the context of a criminal investigation.
The decision by the president to refuse any subpoena directed by House or Senate Democrats to his former counsel Harriet Miers or his current aide Karl Rove will be made against a co-equal branch not authorized to conduct criminal investigations. It will be a case of first impression if it reaches the Supreme Court, and if the Court does answer the question of whether the Congress can subpoena White House aides –it could invoke the political question doctrine and punt– it will be fundamentally unbalancing the branches if it sides with the right of Congress to summon the president’s most senior aides because the president fired eight officials who serve at his pleasure.
I will have Professors Chemerinsky and Eastman on today to discuss the matter. In the meantime, lefties bearing quotes should know they are indicting themselves, not the people they quote. To get started on their education, they might want to read In re Lindsey, a D.C. Circuit opinion from the heyday of the Clinton scandals, which notes that executive privilege exists and has been defeated to date only in the context of criminal investigation:
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com …
March 21st, 2007 at 10:17 amTPMmuckraker rightly points out that, if the us attorneys were fired for performance reasons, there would and should be an extensive paper trail documenting the performance issues… but, guess what…? there isn’t one, at least among the already-released documents…
i have spent numbers of years supervising others and i know from vast experience that, when an employee is being let go – and it makes no difference whether it’s an exempt or non-exempt employee and whether or not they’re serving under an employment contract or simply employment-at-will – you ALWAYS document, document, document… ALWAYS… it’s called covering your ass against the possibility of a wrongful discharge suit…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
March 21st, 2007 at 10:17 amMost of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.
Comment by Tony Snow-
By gosh;all of a sudden I’m agreeing with Tony.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:17 amBad boys, bad boys, whatchagonna do when they come for you?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:18 amThrey feel comfortable because they’ve stacked the courts.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:19 amveritas,
get a clue and an education. this is once again a none issue and you can be sure that the Democrats are going to lose on this one.
yesterday you claim that Bush had been “unofficially impeached” only an ill-educated person would make such absurd comment and today you claim that Bush’s watergate has arrived?
you are obviously not too knowledgeble when it comes to history, politics or anything else.
this is not Watergate kid. but you are too brainwashed by the left and you hate Bush and conservatives too much to even realize it.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:19 amthe people will finally put an abrupt end to Bush’s Monarchy now that he’s become confrontation with the people who pay his salary!
Comment by veritas #4
It would seem that way veritas…
…YES precedent has been set in this matter…
…but THIS SCOTUS is in the hands of Bushites…
…Roberts, Scumlia, Scumlito, and Thomas definitely would side with Bushiva…
…in a showdown…
…Kennedy is the key…
…personally, (in the words of Chuck D) “I can’t trust it”…
…and WHY haven’t “REPORTERS” (in the WH press corp)…
…confronted Snowjob on HIS HYPOCRISY?
…surely if TP found Snowjob’s statements about Clinton’s claims to executive privilege…
…the WH press corps could’ve…
March 21st, 2007 at 10:19 amhow sad it is that the right is always ready to overlook and/or give a pass to this criminal government just because it is their party. they seem to be ecstatic over the centralization of power in a few figures, as long as it is in the hands of members of their own party. they don’t care about democracy, the American way, or moral character. they only care about power, the ability to impose their own warped view on the majority, and the ability to make a profit and not have to care or even know who suffers as a result of their greed.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:23 amPatrickc1,
stop educating the left, you are wasting valuable time. All you are going to get is rants and raves about how wrong you are.
Anyway, amazing that the left defended whole heartly Executive Privilages under Clinton, yet now they attack it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! you lefties are good for one thing, a good old laugh.
read and educate yourselves….”In re Lindsey, a D.C. Circuit opinion from the heyday of the Clinton scandals…”
once again the left wing hypocrisy in full display.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:23 amComment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:13 am
WHEN we have a Democratic president we’ll do that. But that’s not the issue right now is it?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:23 amIt’s always nice to see Nixon’s name come up again. Yet another criminal put into the White House by the immoral Republicans. Need we even talk about Reagan, who illegally sold arms to Iran?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:23 am#5 “If you are going to put a flip-flop from Tony Snow when he was a commentator, make sure you also put the flip-flop from the Democrats when they defended Clinton using Executive Privilage to fight subpeonas from a Republican controlled congress.”
Fair enough. I hold no loyalty to either Democrat nor Republican, so it’s not surprising that Democrats also flip-flopped on this issue. Either way, Bush and Gonzo are going down. Truth prevails.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:24 amThe ruling that “Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets we find it difficult to accept the argument…” is exactly why this administration cites “the war on terra” every time oversight is attempted. And again I say that the supreme court will absolutely rubber stamp the brownshirt policies of this administration. The supreme court is a different court than the fascists of Nixons time faced.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:24 amComment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Well Clinton testified in front of Congress why don’t we just skip the middle men and go directly to Bush and let him testify. Would that seem more even handed to you?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:25 amThis is pretty sad politics as usual. At least we all can now agree this is a poltical show trial. Snow was for these show trials when it benefited his party and are now against show trials when the other side wants to use them for political gain.
If I was the administration, I would demand investigations and public hearing of Schumer before I would cooperate. Schumer is on record interfering with ongoing investigations. He is also on record demanding investigations get done on his timetable and he even applied political pressure to US attorney’s during an investigation. If the Dems are serious about this matter, then they certainly should have no problem investigating Schumer as what he did is identical to what they are claiming the administration did. The only difference is we have written proof from Schumer himself that these charges are real. The charges against the administration are a bunch of here say currently. Anyways, once they publicly investgate Schumer’s horrid actions, then I would grant them the ability to publicly interview administration officials for their show trial.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:26 amComment by Patrick1 — March 21, 2007 @ 10:17 am
You can really trust the legal opinion of somebody who calls people lefties if they want justice. Very enlightened. Let’s just see what happens the next couple of days and then we’ll pull this article out and see if it hold true.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:28 amTony Snow should be forced to testify under oath before Congressional committees too. He hangs out with Bush privately in the Oval Office, so he might know something of value to the Congress. As for executive privilege: a bogus claim by Bush to try to avoid accountability. It’s time for the Congress to either force Bush to resign or to impeach him for high crimes against our nation and war crimes in Iraq.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:30 amhowsad, I am sure that there were some dems who were not happy with Clinton’s use of executive privilege. Back when Clinton was in office I was pretty apathetic about his actions, though I did not vote for him his second term.
So howsad, I’m guessing that you disagreed with Clinton’s use of executive privilege then and you disagree with Bush’s use of it now. Right?
When do I get to see it in writing on this thread?
Anytime? Never? or is it perhaps your hypocrisy that is preventing you from saying it?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:30 amAbsent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, ..
I been tellin’ ya, y’all are either with us or yur against us. Y’all should know that our secret plans for a permanent neoconservative majority are just that..secrets…in…the…na…tion…al…IN…trist. It’s sensitive. It’s secret. I can’t tell you why it’s secret because that’s secret, too. If y’all try to force this secret to be ex…posed y’all are helping the terrists. And I say, bring it on! As long as I’m President, I am the Decider and my…MISSION is to pro…tect this country from terrists who want to change our freedom to be the permanent…ma…jor..ity party.
/sarc off
March 21st, 2007 at 10:31 amWho’s surprised? Tell me, really, WHO IS SURPRISED that he is changing his stance?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:31 amshane,
why is it that Democrats as yourself are so willing to give a pass to the hypocrisy from the left? honestly.
I mean fair enough, Tony Snow fliped-floped, but he was not in goverenment when he made the comment that TP is using.
Democrats in Congress, Democrat pundigs and Liberals in the 1990s quoted and used Executive Privilage to protect the Clinton administration and you are fooling yourslef if you think that they wouldn’t use it if they win in 2008.
I am looking for a serious and non-insulting exchange with you.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:32 amRoger_Roger,
“The charges against the administration are a bunch of here say currently” yeah and so were the charges against Nixon, ya see thats why investigations and hearings are necessary, it’s how our system works, it’s called checks and balances.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:33 amj swift,
Actually, I agree with Executive Privilage whole heartly. I mean think about if, if Congress can investigate the Executive Branch, couldn’t the Executive Branch turn around and investigate Congress?
This is a huge power struggle, this is crossing beyond just politics. This is a show down between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch to see who has more power in our government. This goes way, i mean way beyond politics. At the end neither side should win since our branches are suppose to be equal.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:34 amSnow appears to be channeling Karnak.
Answer is: Perjury.
What’s the question?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:34 amWhy are administration officials afraid to testify unless there’s no transcript?
Comment by Patrick1 — March 21, 2007 @ 10:17 am
First you neocons complain that investigations take too much time and money and then you want to investigate the investgators first. Are you telling us that the Republican majority knew Schumer had committed this offense and did nothing about it until they were the minority and now they want Democrats to investigate.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:35 amSpin, spin, spin little top.
All this BS about what Clinton is alleged to have done illegally, immorally, or just plain wrong so Bush should get a pass is asinine. First, if Clinton DID anything similar is there ANY doubt that the thugs in the Republican party would have pounced all over it AT THE TIME? Of course, but instead they had to jump on trumped up issues. Second, if Clinton DID anything similar, SO WHAT as it being wrong then means it is wrong NOW. It does not matter who was or is confronting that wrongness – at least someone was or is. So, trolls, you’re NOW either with us on protecting our political system of fair elections (which is the underlying issue) or you aren’t. Which is it?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:37 amhowsad,
“I mean fair enough, Tony Snow fliped-floped, but he was not in goverenment…” oh and now that he is “in government” his convictions should of course be expected to change?
Your handle is apt.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:37 amBush’s speech was, how would you sayit? So Nixonesque.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:37 amis there, or is there not any reason for this to escalate? The right continues to state the Attorney’s serve at the pleasure of the president and the left states that any firing can’t be for political reasons. We can all banter about talking points and spins but this seems to be the subject matter.
If the facts are already clear then the left is fishing and does this country a disservice. But if the facts aren’t clear then they are doing exactly what I would expect either party to move forward with.
I want the law to prevail, not either side. The republicans spent millions hunting Clinton and settled for lying about a blow job. With the cases these attorneys were looking into at the time, this has the appearance of unethical force from the white house. Much more damaging to the country than a blow job.
So I’d like to see the facts and I’m going to hunt for them. If they are discussed here, great. If the chest thumping for our side against the other continues then you deserve each other.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:37 amj swift,
I very much agreed when Clinton used it and I agree now that Bush will use it when Leahy and his cohorts go on a witch hunt.
what I see is hypocrisy from the left, the same people that agreed and defended Clinton’s use of the Executive Privilage are now the ones crying about Bush using it.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:38 amSSDD from the Bush administration and from the trolls here at Think Progress. Pathetic. Both can try and “catapult the propaganda” all they like but it changes nothing.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:38 amI see the Repuke trolls are in here bright and early. Karla Rove must pay howsad and the others by the hour.
There’s not going to be a non-insulting exchange with you, howsad. You support a criminal regime that okayed torture and treason. You are not worthy of serious and polite discussion. You SHOULD be insulted.
Several Clinton people had to testify under oath, now it is Karla Rove’s turn. So your arguments are specious. Look it up, dumbass.
You Repukes are too stupid to have a serious discussion with. All you know how to say is Repuke talking point lies, and who wants to talk to liars?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:39 amHowsad – Honestly, I’m not a Democrat. I hated Clinton, and I thought he should have been kicked out of office, because I believe that the President should be a role model. However, I also hate Bush. I find Tony Snow’s old comment to be funny, but I’m not going to sit and defend what Liberals were saying when they tried to protect Clinton. It’s not surprising that both Liberals and Conservatives are flip-flopping right now. I don’t hold this particular quote against Tony Snow, but I’ve heard the guy speak and spin so many things, that I already have enough ammo to dislike the guy without this quote. Like I said in my first post – either way, it looks like Bush and Gonzo are going down. Which is why I’m happy. And I would have been happy if Clinton went down as well. Oh well – you can’t ALWAYS get what you want :-P.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:39 am“I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers We are the president.”
“Heavens, no! It could get subpoenaed. I can’t write anything.”
March 21st, 2007 at 10:39 amhowsad @ 6
From reading your post I take it that you believe the boy king should have kkkarl and little hariette testify under oath.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:39 amCaption Contest:
“Mork calling Orsen, come in Orsen”
March 21st, 2007 at 10:42 amComment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:32 am
I tell you right after you tell me how the Republican congress let 6 years of corruption go unchecked. If we’re hypocrites we learned it from Republicans. Iran Contra no big deal. Clinton blow job, impeachment worthy. Six years of abuse of power, its all good.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:42 amIf your Congress had not rubber stamped everything this administration asked for we wouldn’t be undergoing this Constitutional Crisis now would we. And I believe if Republicans had enforced the usual checks and balances and worked for the people instead of blindly adhering to the wishes of the President it would be better for this country.
So now tell me which is more important to you, the United States or the Republican Party?
And they are paying a political price as the American people long for the 1994 election to be done again in 2008.
Where has the love gone? Support for Democratic Congress plunges
It was the shortest of honeymoons. After less than three months, the new Democratic congressional majority has sunk to the same depths as its Republican counterpart did last year.
A new Gallup polls finds 28 percent of Americans approve, and 64 percent of Americans disapprove, of the job Congress has done. It’s deja vu all over again, just with different leaders at the helm. President Bush should but probably won’t remind Congress as often as possible that it is more unpopular than he.
From Gallup:
PRINCETON, NJ — The modest uptick in approval of the job being done by Congress has dissipated for the most part after only two months. Congress job approval had risen over the last two months after the Democrats took over control of Congress in early January — fueled in large part by a jump in approval among rank and file Democrats. This month, however, Congress job approval is back down to levels quite similar to where it was in 2006. Democrats have lost a good deal of the positivity exhibited in the first two months of the year after their party took over.
According to Gallup’s monthly update on job approval of Congress — in a March 11-14, 2007, national poll — 28% of Americans approve of the job being done by Congress and 64% disapprove. This marks a substantial change from January and February, with approval down nine points and disapproval up nine points.
The current reading suggests that Americans are reverting back to their pessimistic attitudes of last year, when Congress approval ratings were in the 20s for much of the year.
The explanation for the increase in job approval ratings for Congress in January and February lies in the fact that Democrats, and to a degree independents, became much more positive. This more than offset a drop in approval among Republicans.
This month, however, Congress job approval among Democrats has fallen back, and to a lesser degree among independents. Republicans — already much less positive in January and February after their party lost control of Congress — became only slightly more negative this month.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26914
March 21st, 2007 at 10:42 am“Show Trial” is a strawman argument. This is a hearing, not a trial. Congress has a right to get information from the executive branch. Where is it written that the Executive has a right to withhold information, especially information relating to obstruction of justice?
If the administration will not obey a subpoena, the next step should be to appoint a special prosecutor and empanel a grand jury.
That, and begin impeachment proceedings, of course.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:43 amPatrioticLiberalChristian,
nope, you can’t just dismiss it so easily. the same Democrats in government today, the same Senators and Congressmen that are now crying about the use of the Execuitive Privilages that a President can use were the ones that defended Clinton’s use of Executive Privilage.
So, by using your post, Democrats in Congress during the 1990s were completly against what you supposedly stand for, according to the post you wrote, right?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:44 amHere’s something really scary I heard on the radio this morning.
We know that 8 US Attorneys were fired by Gonzo, under orders from the White House, for not being partisan enough. They were too slow to prosecute Democrats and prosecuted too many Repukes. They were fired for not being “loyal Bushies”.
What does this say about the other 80-odd US Attorneys? They were NOT fired because they were partisan enough to keep their jobs. They were good at prosecuting Dems and not prosecuting Repukes.
That’s what’s scary. How many Repukes are getting away with crimes because those US ATtorneys are “loyal Bushies”.
I know of one case that is not being prosecuted, MarianasGate. The US Attorney who WAS prosecuting it was replaced, after Abramoff complained to Rove, with a Chimpy crony and the investigation was dropped.
Chimpy, Rove and Gonzales are wrecking this nation’s legal system. Anybody can see that. Anybody but stupid inbred Repukes.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:44 amRoger_Roger
March 21st, 2007 at 10:44 am#32 was actually to your #22.
Sorry P1
The title of this thread has been shown to be a another TP lie, when will it be corrected?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:44 amDon’t feed the trolls. They are a waste of time.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:45 amU.S. vs. Nixon (418 US 693) is not a “slam dunk” for Congressional Democrats, but they should be able to frame their search requests wtihin its parameters. Excerpts:
U.S. vs. Nixon explicitly did NOT deal with the conflict between the President’s “generalized interest in confidentiality†of his communications and general “congressional demands for informationâ€. [Footnote 19.] It also explicitly did not deal with civil (as opposed to criminal) actions or claims regarding “state secretsâ€.
The case dealt with the President’s claim that he had an absolute privilege that would prevent disclosure of information in his possession, in a criminal action, in which a grand jury had already indicted several of the President’s advisers (and in which the President was an unindicted co-conspirator). The Supreme Court rejected the President’s claim and compelled disclosure under subpoena of specifically identified tape recordings containing statements by the indicted conspirators.
Regarding privilege, the Court said that the Constitution implicitly affords the President a “presumptive privilege†of confidentiality regarding his communications. This privilege is considerable, especially with regard to military, diplomatic and national security issues – to which courts must give “the utmost deferenceâ€. It extends even to, “idle conversations with associates in which casual reference might be made concerning political leaders within the country or foreign statesmen.†But it is a privilege subject to “our historic commitment to the rule of law.â€
President Nixon asserted a “generalized privilege of confidentiality†as a bar to disclosure of “relevant evidence†in a criminal trial. The Supreme Court rejected that claim:
“To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of ‘a workable government’ and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.â€
“[T]o ensure that justice is done,†and that the courts could function, the Court deemed it imperative that “compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the defense.â€
Under U.S. vs. Nixon, Congress will have an uphill battle to compel disclosure, unless it can frame their demands for information in the context of investigating possible criminal wrongdoing.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:46 amIts tough being a US president.
http://www.tekno-world.blogspot.com
March 21st, 2007 at 10:46 amI have a question about the excerpt from United States vs. Nixon, specifically the phrase “production of such material for in camera inspection”. “In camera” means “in chamber” or “in secret”. Does this mean that the hearings with White House staff could be closed to the public?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:47 amWell then howsad why are pointing out the hypocrisy of the left in such general terms? You are stating the obvious and it has no relevance to this discussion.
Does the left’s hypocrisy 6 or 10 years ago have anything to do with whether the Bush administration is dodging accountability now? No.
Or are you really going to tell me that the left’s hypocrisy, or whatever nature many years ago, should allow it.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:47 amyou do know Patrick1 is getting his posting points by cutting and pasting from a right wing blog, don’t you?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:47 amshane,
I am sorry, but Clinton’s blow job was but one thing, there were quite a few scandals, I mean pretty huge corrupt things that Clinton did that the left could careless for.
Remember Wacko and Janet Reno and how it was handle? How about Somolia? How about Chinese obtaining our nuclear secrets from Clinton administration people? How about our educational system going to crap under clinton? Or how about Clinton doing nothing to prevent 9/11?
furthermore, you are answering a question with a question. C’mon shane be honest and answer my post, you can’t expect a meaninful exchange if you aren’t willing ot answer my questions first. Aren’t you guys the ones that cry when you guys ask us questions and we don’t answer. I promise, if you answer my post, I’ll answer your questions.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:47 amClinton was fooling around and lied about it – far worse than any false allegations made against the hard working god fearing Bush. Dems are just upset that got caught.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:48 amwhat I see is hypocrisy from the left, the same people that agreed and defended Clinton’s use of the Executive Privilage are now the ones crying about Bush using it.
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Show us an example of the “same people.” Show us where somebody here defended Clinton’s use. You just throw out vague references like they’re fact. A tactic no doubt learned from all those hours watching Fox News.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:48 amIt figures Chimpy would call a Congressional HEARING a “show trial”.
Chimpy obviously knows absolutely nothing about our legal system.
Gonzo is not much better. He doesn’t even know Habeus Corpus is in the Constitution! He must have gotten through law school on Affirmative Action. 8^)
March 21st, 2007 at 10:49 amI see that Karl’s elves are click clacking for their AEI Fellowships still. Who says that welfare programs are only for the poor or illiterate and talentless. Well, strike that last one.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:50 amCaption contest: “My head is about to explode in a giantic blast of sh!t!”
March 21st, 2007 at 10:51 amSo, by using your post, Democrats in Congress during the 1990s were completly against what you supposedly stand for, according to the post you wrote, right?
Comment by howsad
Pretty broad and unsubstantiated premise so what I “supposedly” stand for cannot be applied. It would be like saying to you “If George W. Bush gave money to Osama Bin Laden three weeks before 9-11, that would be completely against what you supposedly stand for, right?”
March 21st, 2007 at 10:51 amComment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:38 am
So tell me was it a fishing expedition when they asked Bill Clinton if he had sex with Ms. Lewinski?
How was that relevant, sex with a consulting adult.
And perhaps he lied to Congress about it, granted, but maybe he was protecting his wife, daughter and Monica. Some gentlemen would say it was a noble cause and if he had said yes immediately he had thrown these three women to the wolves for his own career.
But you still haven’t answered my earlier question about Bush testifying like Clinton did and then the field is even. Well wouldn’t that be better for you?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:53 amCongress should draw a line in the sand and tell Bush: either cough up Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, Condi Rice, ext. to give testimony under oath before the Congress or be impeached. Your call Dubya Dunce Decider?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:53 am#55 j swift,
of course it has huge relevance today, why? Because the same Democrat Senators and Congressmen that defended Clinton, the same Democrat and Liberal pundits that defended are the ones that today are crying about Executive Privilage being used by Bush.
furthermore, if the hypocrisy from the left 6 to 10 years ago has no relevance for what is happening today, but this argument what Tony Snow said in 1998 has no relevance today, correct?
so are you going to tell TP to take this forum down because of it? are you going to ask them to apologize for bringing in a quote from Tony Snow that he said almost 10 years ago?
Left wingers, and TP can’t put up a quote from Tony Snow from 1998 and claim that it has relevance today when you guys are not saying that whatever Democrats and Clinton did about the subject about 10 years ago has no relevance today.
what is good for the gander, is good for the goose, or is it what is good for Democrats is not good for Republicans?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:54 am#36 The only thing clear is that the Dems want a Show trial (it is the only thing we have proof of right now). They even picked Schumer to lead the charge which is laughable since he is on record applying political pressure to ongoing investigations. He is also on record demanding ongoing investigations get done on his time and he has interfered with them. If the Dems are truly sincere about this issue and want to prove it isn’t a political show trial, they best investigate Schumer ASAP. If they fail to do that, the administration shouldn’t cooperate at all. Let the Dems have their show trial for the TV cameras without them. There is no reason for them to participate in something like this since both sides already know the conclusion. The president can fire these attorney’s anytime he wants for any reason he wants. I don’t agree that it should be right, but the law allows it. I wonder if the law allows a simple Sen. like Schumer to interfere with ongoing investigation though. Is that legal for him to demand the justice department hurry an investigation and demand they answer his questions even though they aren’t supposed to? This actually deserves an investigation since he certainly doesn’t have executive priviledge.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:55 amPatrickc1,
stop educating the left,
That’s rich. Patrick1… educating?
you are wasting valuable time.
That’s even richer. Since when it’s valuable the time of PatricK1?
All you are going to get is rants and raves about how wrong you are.
Rich, rich, rich to no end. So if Patrick1 earns to be insulted, is because he’s a smart pundit? Yeah, right. A one liner smart pundit, if anything. Frankly, the I Ching has more sense and instrospection than Pee1. And has a lot more credibility.
Well, I stop analyzing your pity post here, my sides are hurting really bad already.
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:23 am
No wonder you did choose this nick. But probably you don’t understand what I mean really.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:58 amThe subcommittee voted to subpeona the boys, just sayin.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:58 amRoger is another stupid Repuke troll who pukes up talking points. His posts in here are not worth reading.
This is about the RULE OF LAW. Either you support the rule of law, or you support Chimpy.
A lot of Republicans are going to dump Chimpy on this one, he’s going beyond the pale. The Senate has already voted almost unanimously to cancel Gonzo’s appointment-without-confirmation power. That means a LOT or Repukes are crossing the aisle.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:58 amShane,
why would Bush testify like Clinton did? honestly, why? Clinton testified because he was the scandal, he was the one that lied under oath…
and protecting his family? Shane, c’mon the guy has been having affairs since he married his wife, it was well known when he was a governorn, it was well known when he was President and it iwell known today.
and Clinton has a funny way to protect his family, having affairs after affairs.
and as I said, this is a small, small scandal of his compared to the bigger things he did.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:59 amDeveloping Story right now on cnn.com
A House subcommittee voted today to authorize subpoenas for President Bush’s key adviser, Karl Rove, and other top White House aides, in the probe of ousted U.S. attorneys.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:59 amHey, it looks as if the talking point that has faxed today Karly Robber is “Show Trial = Baaad”.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:00 amI am sorry, you can’t bring a Tony Snow quote from 1998 and claim it has huge relevance today and then turn around and say that what Democrats did when Clinton invoked Executive Privilage has no relevance today.
Either both are fair game or neither one is fair game.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:02 amSnow shouldn’t feel “pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument†because it’s pretty clear there isn’t one.
GOOD! This way the SC will set a “precedent for our president”. (I made that up).
RN
March 21st, 2007 at 11:02 amFlaco, heh, heh, heh,
Patrick1 heh, heh, heh
Rogerdoger heh, heh, heh,
Jake heh, heh, heh
March 21st, 2007 at 11:02 amIt Wasn’t Just a Bad Idea. It May Have Been Against the Law.
exerpts below
it was not hard to spot that White House and Justice Department officials, and members of Congress, may have violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1520, the federal obstruction of justice statute.
1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to “impede†it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House’s involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.
If Mr. Sampson withheld the information from Mr. McNulty, who then misled Congress, Mr. Sampson may have violated § 1505.
2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,†including U.S. attorney investigations.
3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation.
4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.
Let’s take the case of Carol Lam, United States attorney in San Diego. The day the news broke that Ms. Lam, who had already put one Republican congressman in jail, was investigating a second one, Mr. Sampson wrote an e-mail message referring to the “real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.†He said it made him think that it was time to start looking for a replacement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.html?ex=1331956800&en=ffab854496251b4b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (released Feb. 22, 2007) revealed that since 1981, no more than three U.S. attorneys had ever been FORCED OUT UNDER SIMILAR CONDITIONS.
http://www.buzzflash.com/archives/07/US_attrny_rprt.pdf
BTW 18 days of DOJ Emails concerning the “Prosecutorgate” debacle appear to be missing.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:02 amSSDD.
Clinton, Conspiracism, and the Continuing Culture War
March 21st, 2007 at 11:02 amhowsad heh, heh, heh
March 21st, 2007 at 11:02 amIf the argument is about whether the Bush administration can hide the slimy things it’s done under the cloak of executive privilege, sorry, there is no way “liberals can lose.”
Bush has already lost plenty on this one, and every day it’s in the headlines he loses even more. Please, righties, keep arguing that he has executive privilege over this stuff. It’ll just give the story more legs.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:04 amConyers’ House committee has voted to SUBPOENA Harriet Miers and Karla Rove. I hope they don’t both wear the same dress to the hearing, that would be embarrassing.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:04 amBy voice vote and without objection, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president’s top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:05 amTo the heart of the question at hand.
Would anyone try to make the case that it is a good thing to have politics and political influence inserted into our legal system?
Is it OK or not to have U.S. Attorneys making decisions to prosecute or not based on their legal training and ethics, but instead on the political machinations of the party in power?
Go ahead. Make the case.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:06 amTom3 :
thanks for the humour : I needed it!
March 21st, 2007 at 11:06 amYou know the Repuke trolls are on the ropes when they bring up Clinton.
“But Clinton Did It Too!”, they whine. Waaah!! Waah!! Waaah!!
Somebody call these Repuke trolls a WAAAAHmbulance.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:07 amSnow hasn’t flip-flopped. He knows full-well that the public has no faith in Mr. Bush whatsoever; thus nothing left to “ebb away” from further, cynical misuse of the “majesty of his office.”
March 21st, 2007 at 11:08 am#73- you’re totally right- Tony Snow contradicting something he said in 1998 is not news. He makes inconsistent statements like that three or so times before breakfast.
It also presumes that he bases the things he says on some sort of abiding principles. Like open government, due process, etc. Oh, damn, I just snorted coffee out my nose again.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:08 amIt figures the Repuke trolls are still seeing this as a political contest.
They want the Liberals to lose. They want to win.
This isn’t an election, you dumbass inbred morons.
This is about whether we are a nation of laws.
Obviously you Repukes do not support the rule of law.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:08 amHmm, looks like I missed a “not”…not not based on…
March 21st, 2007 at 11:08 amWell, hopefully all the trolls will get my meaning and take up the defense of their administration.
r2 that answers absolutely nothing. It shows your side but I already knew which side of the fence you are on. I am looking for the facts. We are a nation of laws and that’s what should prevail. You are pointing a finger saying “he’s not squeaky clean either”. Fine with me, we’ll get to Schumer. This is more pressing and for you to loudly profess that view point while ignoring that these attorneys may have been dissmissed under shady circumstances then you add nothing to the argument.
howsad says
Fantastic, if you feel as strongly about the wrong doings above, no matter how accurate they are, then surely you want this president investigated for sending soldiers to their deaths for no valid reason. The number one stated reason for this country to invade Iraq was WMD’s and there isn’t any. Thousands have died and tens of thousands more have been forever injured by this and he was flat out wrong. Sounds like at least on even par with a shady land deal.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:09 amConyers must force VP Cheney to testify under oath too. I do not care if Dicky goes ballistic and his heart gives out.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:09 amComment by Patrick1 — March 21, 2007 @ 10:42 am
If uou actually read the posts on this site you would realize that people are unhappy with Democrats for taking impeachment off the table, for not issuing supoenas already, for not immediately ending the war. You argue against Democrats doing any of these things and then you show the hit they are taking for not doing them.
There’s just no pleasing you people.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:09 am#66 howsad,
Neither the left’s hypocrisy nor Snow’s hypocrisy have anything to do with whether, today, the Bush administration is trying to dodge accountability by claiming executive privilege.
Honestly, I don’t know if Snow’s hypocrisy comes from his partisan political beliefs or the fact that he is doing his job.
One would expect better from Bush, the Christian man of faith, the conservative who holds morality above all else, the Republican whose party stands for honesty and accountability.
As opposed to us dirty hippie moral relativist liberals.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:09 amIt takes a lot of energy and concentration to do an abrupt, 180-degree shift on your brain. Sometimes, it’s enough to make your head rotate completely around and say something silly like: “F* him, Father Karas. F* him in the ass, you faggot!”
March 21st, 2007 at 11:09 amRove and Miers will testify, because there is nothing in the law to prevent such an action- not even the President’s wish to not have it so.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply from the Repuke trolls, RUCerious.
They know there is no case for politicizing the legal system. None.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:10 amAnd, oh, Karl and Harriet… bring the missing 18 days worth of e-mails when you come…
March 21st, 2007 at 11:11 amThat was no flip-flop on Tony’s part!
Tony did exactlywhat his Pimp, Rupert Murdoch told him to do. He pulled down his pants and exposed his rear.
His new pimp, is no less demanding, and no less demented and corrupt.
Tony Snow is doing what all media whores do. And he does it so well.
Faux Noise in the White House. What’s new?
March 21st, 2007 at 11:11 am“I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers We are the president.â€
“Heavens, no! It could get subpoenaed. I can’t write anything.â€
Comment by hacker bob — March 21, 2007 @ 10:39 am
So are you saying that Presidents won’t document anything if they’re afraid of investigations. Or are you saying that the president believes he is above repercussions. I’m missing your point.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:12 amhowsad,
I don’t carry water for the Democrats (I’m libertarian) and the use executive privilage excuse by Clinton and Bush for matters that are not of national interest is wrong. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, the Bush regime is criminal and shows complete contempt for the Constitution. That they should now hide behind the Executive Privilage excuse is most ironic.
They are also far far more radical and dangerous than Clinton ever was. I don’t much care what scandal brings them down so long as they are neutered before they cause any more damage to America and the rest of the world.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:14 amDemocrats in Congress during the 1990s were completly against what you supposedly stand for, according to the post you wrote, right?
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:44
So show us which of those Democrats that were in office then are in office now.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:14 am#96- They’re gonna have to do some digging for those missing mails. There’s a good reason Karl’s ass is so freaking wide.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:14 amCaption:
“I can pick up AM talk radio all the way from Texas when I do this!”
March 21st, 2007 at 11:16 amTom3
They know there is no case for politicizing the legal system. None.
~ Shhhh!~
March 21st, 2007 at 11:16 amThe silence is deafening…
I don’t like it. We have hear people who are willing to depend criminal activities and blatant coverup attempts in order to defend their so-called party affiliation. I would think if party association was removed when thinking what is right or wrong, they would see activities of recent past is criminal and detrimental to US. And yet, they keep on defending. I don’t understand. Selfish egotistical behavior is more important than fellow countrymen and state of the country??? Rule of Law is not a law for a sake of law. It is designed to try to protect its citizens and the country. Please, instead of looking at things the same old way. Do not start by republicans against democrats. Help the country towards peace and justice for all individuals.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:17 amTom3
Turning………….purple……………….
March 21st, 2007 at 11:17 amRUCeriouos, you’ve asked the million dollar question. Very well put.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:18 amShane,
The problem is that you guys want impeachment for things that are not valid.
Bush has committed no crimes, you guys claim he did. We know and Democrats in Congress know he hasn’t done any crimes.
The issue at hand is that Democrats want Bush impeached because Clinton was impeached. Revenge is the name of the game in politics.
Bush has done nothing wrong.
and I am sorry, if you guys were truly disconted about Democrats you guys will stay home and not vote for any democrats in 2008, right?
which we know that won’t happen.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:20 amComment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:47 am
You post false assertions and then want me to respond to them.
You didn’t answer my question, why doesn’t Bush testify like Clinton did?
Otherwise I don’t agree with your OPINION on these issues and you’re not going to change that.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:21 amAnd I’m not wasting time with you or other trolls today.
Tom3 foams a lot from the mouth. I think he pops a couple of veins when he comes in here.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:21 am#52
Under U.S. vs. Nixon, Congress will have an uphill battle to compel disclosure, unless it can frame their demands for information in the context of investigating possible criminal wrongdoing.
As mrJJ reminds us in #76, item 4, there is strong evidence to pursue a case of obstruction. There is also strong evidence tying Rove and Miers to the firings and Lam’s in particular. This may not get as far as the Supreme Court, but if it goes before any court, those judges are going to look at the timeline for Lam’s investigations and firing, along with Sampson’s mention of her being a “real problem”, and they’re likely to see a case for obstruction. The Judiciary committees can go to work on putting that case together, and any others they might have, while Fielding is trying to figure out how to defuse this thing before it blows up in Bush’s face. The clock is ticking and the White House is only going to look worse as more of the story gets out.
The ties to Rove are already clear. Somebody’s disappointed because their USA isn’t prosecuting cases the way they want, they call Rove, the USA goes on the firing list. Just like that.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:21 amShane, are you serious?
Kennedy, Byrd, Pelosi, Durbin, Murtha, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc….
wow….
March 21st, 2007 at 11:22 am#106 Helena
March 21st, 2007 at 11:23 amThanks. See, I do contribute more than just my goofball humor. Once in a while I R Cerious.
Shane, was I simply pointing out that this is proof the Dems are putting on a Show Trial. If they were truly honest about this situation and truly believed this “problem” was important, they would certainly be investigating anyone who is on record interfering and demanding ongoing investigations get done faster. Come now, you have to agree with me on this. We either
A) Accept these hearings are nothing more then something designed for political gain and not investigate Schumer.
or
B) The Dems step up and show the American people these are show trials and they truly are looking out for our best interests. Since we already have proof shoing Schumer interfered with ongoing investigations, they would set up a parrelel trial and investigation against Schumer. They would also continue to demand Gonzo be removed and any other administration official involved. They would also ask Schumer to leave the Senate. Doing this would prove they are sincere about the problem and aren’t simply looking for TV time for political gain.
I personally think all this stuff is nasty and wrong. I believe they should change the law so the president can’t do this stuff because he currently has the complete right. Furthermore, if folks like Schumer can legally force the justice department to speed up investigations and he is currently legally allowed to interfere, we need to change that law as well. What I want to see is the Dems be honest with the American public and actually spend their time working for change. They could be working to change these laws. Instead they are wasting their time with show trials that they already know will net them nothing since the President is allowed by law to fire attorney’s for any reason he wants at any time he wants.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:24 amThe freak show being put on display here by howsad is a pretty good indicator of the convulsions that are starting to tear the Bush dead enders apart.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:25 amShane,
what were my false assertions? You tell me, why would Bush have to testify? what impeachment article has Congress charged him with? what Crimes has Congress levied against him? when did Congress call him to testify?
I could easily say the same thing about your arguments. All you are saying here are YOUR OPINIONS and most of them are false assertions against Bush and Republicans.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:25 amIt figures Chimpy would call a Congressional HEARING a “show trialâ€.
Comment by Tom3 — March 21, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Well he and his constituents believe professional wrestling is real so it’s not too surprising.
Hey and don’t be dissing the deciderator, he knows what beagles are!
March 21st, 2007 at 11:25 am#67 Roger_Roger
The only thing clear is that the Dems want a Show trial
Well, you call it a show trial. We call it a hearing where questions need to be asked of the people involved and they need to be answered under oath. Why do you think Rove and Miers don’t need to be under oath and why do you think the public doesn’t have a right to know that the White House is replacing unbiased U.S. attorneys with political operatives? Shouldn’t the public be aware of the fact that law enforcement is being turned into a political operation where Democrats get prosecuted and Republicans don’t? I would think that’s something the American people would feel they have a right to know.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:26 amverbalkint,
The freak show being put on display here by liberals is a pretty good indicator of the convulsions that are starting to tear the Democrats and Liberals dead enders apart.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:29 am#82. Exactly. Having an affair with an intern is NOT THE SAME as INTERFERING WITH THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY. And, besides that, my mamma always says, “2 wrongs don’t make a right” – if you want to justify the actions of the WH by claiming “Clinton did it……”
March 21st, 2007 at 11:30 amhowsad is now on my permanent whack-only list, meaning that I will not attempt to engage him in a serious discussion because he is either incapable or unwilling to use logic or reason, and I will only comment to him two times per thread (OK, maybe more if I’m entertained) in a bash-only manner.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:31 am#107
Bush has committed no crimes, you guys claim he did. We know and Democrats in Congress know he hasn’t done any crimes.
The issue at hand is that Democrats want Bush impeached because Clinton was impeached. Revenge is the name of the game in politics.
Bush has done nothing wrong.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:32 amHow brainwashed can one get? Wake the fuck up!!!
#118 howsad
verbalkint,
The freak show being put on display here by liberals is a pretty good indicator of the convulsions that are starting to tear the Democrats and Liberals dead enders apart.
He got you there, VerbalKint. It’s the old “I know you are but what am I?” gambit.
Quick! Say “I’m rubber, you’re glue…” Quick!
March 21st, 2007 at 11:33 am#90 I do want in investigation into the Iraq war. Currently, all the evidence points to the fact our Congress and our President made an honest error simply because they both believed evidence that proved incorrect. They made this decision because they were trying to protect America and it’s allies. I don’t fault any of them for that. The investigation I want is to figure out how all these world intelligence agencies got it wrong and what we can do it improve the intelligence provided to congress and our President so this mistakes don’t ever happen again. Now #90, I certainly wouldn’t jump to conclusions like you have without an investigation proving these things. Like I said, we currently have only evidence showing that our elected officials made an honest error trying to protect me and my family. If, within the investigation, hard evidence turns up that Bush or Congress knew ALL the intel was falty before the war, then we need to prosecute and lock away whoever that was as they would have committed one of the worst crimes in USA history. From what I have seen so far, not even the CIA or other countries intelligence agencies new the intel was faulty before the invasion so I highly doubt the president or Congress new it as they would be the only people in the world that new it. Either way, I would focus more on the facts and evidence then on assumptions, opinions, and your emotions. None of that stuff stands up anywhere except poltical show trials which are a waste of time and provide this country a disservice.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:34 amFunny: typical republican hypocracy from the snowman.
I keep wondering who would make the best poster child for republican hypocracy. Is it Snow, Limbaugh, Hanity, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Feith, Wolfowitz, Gonzo, Newt, wow the list goes on and on.
Hypocrits one and all!
March 21st, 2007 at 11:37 am#120PatrioticLiberalchristian…
oh what happened, logic and education shut you up? I am sorry that you are such a partisan hack that you can’t see without the partisan glasses.
Liberals like you, when they lose the debate usually post an idiotic comment like yours.
you are nothing, but the typical run of the mill liberal that can’t think on their own, and is as intolerant and closed minded as they come.
don’t worry, I laugh my head off and you entertain me a lot with yoru silly, ill-informed posts.
so post way kid and amuse me.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:38 amWell now that subpoenas have been issued it seems that our trolls should pack up their placards and stage a protest for congress.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:40 amHow many of us have been to protests agains the war.
Trolls want to sit here and flap their gums but you can tell by their continual presence that they don’t DO anything but complain HERE.
Yesterday many THOUSANDS took to the streets in Chicago to protest the war.
Well trolls – heading for Washington?
#121chimpboy…
so are you crying because you don’t like it when your own insults are used against you, or because you just like to cry and whine?
just remember, if anyone calls me hateful and full of venom, all I did is throw back the insults that liberals on here used against me.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:40 am#177 I completely agree we should now these facts. I agree that they should testify under oath publicly. I AGREE WITH YOU!! What I am trying to say is that currently, the “reason” the Dems are doing it isn’t for our interests, its for their poltical gain, thus it is a Show trial or a Show Hearing if you will. With that said, the Dems need to investigate Schumer and have a Show Trial where he testifies under oath publicly to his crimes. I want the Dems to grill him just like they will grill Rove etc. Unless the Dems are prepared to go all the way and actually investigate and hold hearings on ALL public officials that interfered with investigations, the administration should continue to not take part in this circus. It is a waste of time because the Dems motives are suspect. If they can’t be impartial and investigate Schumer, it is a waste of time for the administration to cooperate. It provides we the people with nothing positive.
You either investigate and hold hearings on all the potenital crooked officials or you investigate and hold hearings on none of them.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:42 amThey’re gonna have to do some digging for those missing mails. There’s a good reason Karl’s ass is so freaking wide.
Comment by R — March 21, 2007 @ 11:14 am
Oh that’s what Jeff Gannon was doing at the WH, filing?
March 21st, 2007 at 11:45 amMaybe Ed Henry or David Gregory can ask Snow about this flip flop at the next briefing.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:50 amI’d like to see Snow tap dance.
shane,
Maybe Karl Rove took his lessons from Sandy Burgler, you know ex-National security advisor who stole classified documents and stuffed them down his pants.
Do you think it is a big crime that a form National Security Advisor steals and destroys classified documents so that the 9/11 commission wouldn’t learn the truth about what Clinton didn’t do to prevent 9/11?
March 21st, 2007 at 11:50 amTom3
Turning………….purple……………….
Comment by RUCerious — March 21, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Tom3 – howsad used the phrase “foaming at the mouth” about 20 time yesterday. He gets so excited when he learns how to spell a new word.
RUCerious – please breathe – honest answers to legitimate questions never come from trolls.
Hope you’re okay.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:51 amShane, are you serious?
Kennedy, Byrd, Pelosi, Durbin, Murtha, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc….
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Nice try but Durbin is my senator and he wasn’t in office then. So you’re down to 4 if those are accurate. So 4 is all you got.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:53 amBack to troll-free…3..2..1
A devastating display by Karl’s Elves today. Some even name themselves after characters in films that elevate deception, payback and murder to biblical proportions.
Mr. Bush resurrects the language of Stalinesque critiques such as “show trials” to suggest that he is a patriot, a victim defending himself from leftist propaganda. The perp calling those who expose him names. Like Keyser Soze accusing the FBI of acting out of revenge.
Mr. Bush’s slurred rant yesterday was the usual Rovian attempt to tar his critics with his clients’ worst traits. Mr. Bush is in a pickle of his own devising. He should take his medicine now; it will taste worse later.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:54 amComment by Roger_Roger — March 21, 2007 @ 11:24 am
YAWN
Asserting my troll-free privilege.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:56 amshane,
Durbin was not a Senator in 1998? He is my Senator too kid….you are busted, he is the Majority Whip, you know what that means, right? and you do know how long it takes to become the Majority Whip, right?
sorry, you are wrong, busted.
Senator Dick Durbin was elected on November 5, 1996.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H1201103
and I am not going to sit here and list all the Democrats that were in office back then….you are being quite silly
now will you admit you are wrong about Senator Durbin not being in power when the whole Executive Privilage was used by Clinton?
March 21st, 2007 at 11:57 amComment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 11:25 am
Double YAWN
March 21st, 2007 at 11:58 amshane,
why don’t you list all the Democrat Congressmen and Senators that were not in power during the 1990s, ok?
man, what silly game are you playing.
and still waiting for you to admit how wrong you are about Durbing….are you truly from Chicago, IL.
everyone knows that Durbin has been in power since 1996. wow!
March 21st, 2007 at 11:59 amWhat a FRAUD the current GOP is. Rule of Law? Not when it isn’t good to us. Being Honest with the American People? No a chance? “It’s your government” – not unless we want to hide it from you. Conservative? Bwa Haa Haa.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:00 pm118. verbalkint,
Look at howsad, the human(?) parrot!
March 21st, 2007 at 12:00 pmshane
March 21st, 2007 at 12:01 pm#136shane,
is this how you respect those that disagree with you? I haven’t insulted you or put you down, but you Liberals can’t take it when you are proven wrong. You lose the debate and you immediatly turn to insulting and putting people down. You are proving my point shane that it is impossible to have respectful debates with Liberals since all you guys can do is insult and put people down.
are you such a partisan hack, are you so blind by Democrat and Liberal ideology that you can’t even grasp how wrong and ill informed you are?
March 21st, 2007 at 12:01 pmshane ~
March 21st, 2007 at 12:02 pmAwwwwkkk~
howsad wanna cracker~ Awwwwk howsad isa cracker, Awwkkk!~
r2 #122. I don’t think this thread is the place to debate the intelligence behind the invasion of Iraq. You say honest attempts and I say not. I’ll leave it at that for now and wait for those threads. If and when the time comes I would hope you and I, along with any other participant, would put forth facts and then debate them instead of spin and missrepresentations.
As for this thread, there are too many loose ends that need to be addressed. RUCerious raised the question “Is it OK or not to have U.S. Attorneys making decisions to prosecute or not based on their legal training and ethics, but instead on the political machinations of the party in power?”
This is the issue and it hasn’t been cleared up by the shifting explainations given by this administration. I believe it is worthy of looking deeper. If you don’t fine, but either support it with facts or get shot down without.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:02 pm122. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 21, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Anybody have a bridge to sell to R2? There’s a sucker troll born every minute.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:02 pmshane,
be the woman you refuse to be and admit that you lied about Durbin….and if you lied about such a simple thing as Durbin not being in power during the Clinton years, what other things are you lying about?
the question is, where you lying or do you lack such basic education about our politicians?
how can you opine about politics if you don’t even know the basics of it?
the sad thing is that you are representative of the majority of your party, poorly informed, partisan hack, lack of education, no knowledge about our political system and blinded by the Democrats god, Clinton. As proven when you said that you would vote a third time for this incredibly stupid, corrupt, sad excuse of a man.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:04 pmwhat’s sad is that the mansonfamily can’t look at this story and see the hypocrisy being practiced by snoball and the administration, which I would condemn no matter the party affiliations involved - lying is lying, and lying with a calculated purpose, in contradiction of one’s own words, is the lowest form of lying practiced by people.
howsad, you’re a ninny. you wouldn’t acknowledge the truth if it grew from your head like hair. you’re blinded by your mansonfamily manlove for someone who wouldn’t trade a shake of salt for your life, and as such, you’re a discredit to every decent principle this country stands for. congratulations.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:08 pmHowsad, is your whole argument Clinton did it so there? That’s all you’ve got? Clinton was impeached so stand aside little man and allow justice to prevail. I’m pretty sure in 8 years or so you’ll be on the other side of your own opinion clammoring for justice to be served to the next democrat to get drunk on power.
Let the laws rule, not the people holding the seats.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:08 pmeveryone knows that Durbin has been in power since 1996. wow!
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 11:59 am
In your previous post you said the 90s not 96 on. Clearly if he was elected in 96 he wasn’t there throughout the 90s.
TROLL FREE – DON’T MAKE ME SHOUT!
March 21st, 2007 at 12:10 pm#147hellinabucket,
wait, are you the one saying that because Clinton was impeached Bush be impeached too?
I think the only little man here is you guy. You just did what you are accusing me of doing.
don’t worry, most of you liberals do it all the time.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:11 pmhowsad has only his hysteria, his talking points transcribed hastily from the am radio, and a lot of time on his hands/hate in his heart.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:12 pmGood example of how to shut down rational discussion on an excellent blog. It won’t work, Karl, but keep spending those RNC or AEI dollars. You may need your own when the FBI look a little more closely at the “sale” of your political consulting business to former employees who seem to lack either the talent or money to do anything but hold it and “sell” it back to you when you depart.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:12 pmNormal people are affected by irony. Republicans, employing their patented Ignorance Cloaking Device, are immune to such effects, completely oblivious to its clear existence as is a man to a dog whistle.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:13 pmSo I’d like to see the facts and I’m going to hunt for them. If they are discussed here, great. If the chest thumping for our side against the other continues then you deserve each other.
Comment by hellinabucket #36
Here’s ONE fact for you hellinabucket…
…Carol Lam a US Attorney in San Diego was said to have been fired…
…for NOT pursuing illegal immigration hard enough…
…but she just happened to have come off one of the biggest corruption conviction in years (Duke Cunningham’s)…
…and was just about to go after Jerry Lewis and other corrupt officials in the military industrial complex…
…THAT says enough for me…
…as for the chest thumping…
…premature?
…maybe…
…warranted?
…Ya DAMN skippy!
March 21st, 2007 at 12:13 pmKEEP IT ON TOPIC WINGNUTS!!!!
March 21st, 2007 at 12:13 pmhellinabucket sez:
Essentially. Being a longterm sufferer of COD (Clinton Obsessive Disorder), howsad is chronically unable to form an argument that doesn’t obsess on Clinton in some fashion.
Please read this brief public service announcement for more information:
March 21st, 2007 at 12:14 pm
shane, shane, shane…..
you do know when your god Clinton was elected into office, right? you do know when he began his term, right? January of 1993, Durbin was only absetn 3 years out of Clinton’s 8 years term.
and we were talking about Clinton using Executive Privilage during his term in the 1990s which Dick Durbin defended along with the majority of Democrats.
you lied, or you didn’t know about Durbin, which ever one you did, you proved to know little about politics. don’t worry, must people in America are 100% ignorant about it too.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:14 pmComment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
YAWN – all this white noice is making me sleepy.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:15 pmHowsad employing here, in #6, the patented Republican “They did it first” defense.
God, Trolls, get some new tricks in your playbook. Get creative.
Oops. I forgot. The essence of the Authoritarian mind is an utter lapse of indepedent and/or creative thinking.
Oh well. Better luck next time and THANKS FOR PLAYING!
March 21st, 2007 at 12:16 pm#126 vinnie
#121chimpboy…
so are you crying because you don’t like it when your own insults are used against you, or because you just like to cry and whine?
I’m crying right now as I type this. I can barely see the keyboard. How can you be so cruel? Repeating my own words (actually VerbalKint’s) back to me? You bastard! Or bitch, I’m not really sure which one to use with you.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:16 pmtom baker,
you liberals never fail to claim that someone that disagrees with yoru point of views is full of hate.
why are you liberals so predictable, why?
I hope you don’t believe for one second that any of your liberal cohorts on this blog actually have original talking points. Everything and anything they have said today I read in plenty of liberal blogs and heard it say by liberal commentators.
leave it to a liberal to believe he is original and a free thinker.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:17 pmComment by RUCerious — March 21, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Thanks you woke me up laughing from my white noise coma. isacracker should be his new name.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:18 pmpoor shane,
like a good liberal you were completly ignorant of the facts and the only thing you have left is to type “yawn”.
fun to put liberals in their uneducated place.
I am sure you thought Clinton could be elected a third time to the office of the Presidency.
it is obvious that all you are is a poor, poor uneducated, silly little airhead. is that why your husband married you? he was afraid of intellectual challenge?
March 21st, 2007 at 12:19 pmI won’t begin to get into your slanted logic sadsack. I am restating your own points. Now if Clinton was held to the standard, and remember the initial investigation was for land deals (Whitewater) and it ended with him lying about a blow job (that cost the tax payers over 70 million because of Ken Starrs dogged pursuit, then Bush and his administration should be held to the same standards when the question of integrity in the Justice dept and it’s dealings with the White House is in question.
Also remember silly little sack, I never voted for Clinton and don’t defend him now. Laws are constant for a reason. And again you ignorant pile of reverberating jello, I am not your definition of Liberal you so happily spout out as if you are getting insults in. You’re just throwing out words with no verification. Kind of like how me and 45 of my closest army buddies had there way with your momma. She wanted more but we ran out of paper bags. Guessed where they were placed? See, those are just words that don’t have any facts but were thrown out to hurt. No real substance but fun to throw.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:21 pmFor only pennies a day, less than the price of a cup of coffee, you can help COD
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — March 21, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
Unfortunately I’m a small business owner and under the Bush Administration I don’t have pennies a day. Please get back to me after impeachment.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:25 pmNote the frequency with which howsad starts his entries with some condescending phrase like, “Poor ThinkProgress. . .” or “Shane Shane Shane . . .”
Like he’s this wise old sage. Heh.
How sad is Howsad’ condescending and pendantic faux pity and any sense whatsoever of superiority. In fact, the familiar refrain’s very tautology reflects, again, the paucity of original thought on the Right.
Poor little benighted Righties. : )
March 21st, 2007 at 12:28 pmis that why your husband married you? he was afraid of intellectual challenge?
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 12:19
I believe it was because I am breathtakingly gorgeous and stand to inherit a lot of money.
But what do I know?
Boring
March 21st, 2007 at 12:28 pm#163hellinabucket…..such “mature” and “well thought out” post…. wow! talk about being a 2 year old….
what, it started with Whitewater and it ended up with him lying about a blowjob?
how did you get through school, bribing your teachers?
yes and every liberals favorite line….”I never voted for Clinton”
funny how all of you say it….
and i see like a good two year old you couldn’t hold yourself back and had to lower yourself to what liberals truly are, worms and roaches and you insulted my mother. and you think you words insulted me? it just proved what I have known for a long time, liberals are a sad excuse of human beings. so keep on “insulting me” you just reinforce what is true about you liberals.
and don’t worry, your sad excuse of a post just show that you lost the argument.
all liberals turn to personal insults when they lost the argument.
now clean the foam out of your mouth and clean your computer.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:29 pmhowsad – your playground childrens’ rhetoric is nothing but tiresome, and it makes people laugh at you.
“gee, you guys are the hateful ones, ’cause you’re hating on charlie”
spoken like a real Tex Watson
March 21st, 2007 at 12:29 pmChadwik,
and did you notice how insulting and ridiculous individuals like shane and hellinabucket get when they are show how wrong they are?
or do you only care when a right winger becomes condescending after being thrown insult after insult when he has been respectful with liberals?
Chadwik, you are nothing but the typical two face, hypocrite liberal. Not an insult, just the truth.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:31 pmClinton Didn’t Do it Too!
March 21st, 2007 at 12:31 pmClinton Didn’t Do it Too!
Clinton Didn’t Do it Too!
Clinton Didn’t Do it Too!
Clinton Didn’t Do it Too!
howsad needs to get in touch with a cult deprogrammer before it’s too late.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:38 pmBesides that, I don’t even see this as a separation of powers issue. I see this as an abuse of power issue that requires sunshine and that can only occur in public and under oath.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:40 pmChimpeach
The “I know you are, but what am I?” tactic has always been over my head…just never made any sense. So, knowing that I’m challenged already, help me understand the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” defense.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:49 pmI still like my post sadsack. You haven’t shown squat. You’re the “on message man” and it doesn’t matter what you spew. If you would have taken a moment and absorbed my post you would realize they are just words. Nope you couldn’t see that and threw your own version of venom and then jumped back to attack mode.
A simple question was raised awhile ago in this thread and I don’t believe you answered it.
“Is it OK or not to have U.S. Attorneys making decisions to prosecute or not based on their legal training and ethics, but instead on the political machinations of the party in power?â€
Answer this and we can move on howsad. Don’t answer it and you deserve everything thrown in your direction.
TMM COD is a long term illness isn’t it. Thanks for the Public Service Announcement.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:51 pmshane, just admit it, you either lied about Durbin, or you lack the education to know about him.
either way, you represent what Liberals are….liars and uneducated.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:52 pmChadwik,
and did you notice how insulting and ridiculous individuals like shane and hellinabucket get when they are show how wrong they are?
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007
Howsad, might I direct you to my entry at 158?
Howsad employing here, in #6, the patented Republican “They did it first†defense.
Comment by Chadwick — March 21, 2007
Thanks for proving me correct! And THANKS FOR PLAYING!
March 21st, 2007 at 12:53 pmThese sadsack trolls can whine all day long, but the truth is simple — the subpoenas have already been cut. Given that, we don’t need a crystal ball to see the future — Bush will fall apart like a wet Kleenex, and not a moment too soon.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:56 pm#45 The US economy is on the verge of collapse. For this there are numerous reasons but one of the biggest is the fact that Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthy. Those cuts were passed when the republicans controlled the White House, Senate and House. We are now seeing the effects as 26% of the nation is now “dirt poor”.
The stock market has had several giant down turns since the first of the year starting with a fall from overseas. With this we now see the end of the housing bubble and looming foreclosures as indicators that;
1) The US debt is too high.
2) Energy costs are soaring (the actual reason the military is in Iraq).
3) The +/-70% of the population that do not support Bush have in fact lost faith in the US government due to Presidential, Congressional and Judicial abuses from both sides (showing the need to abolish the party system in favor of an independent system).
None of this touches the actual abuses done by things like the Patriot Act that violates the Constitution by allowing searches without writ or cause. Until Congress repeals these unjust Orwellian articles of slavery the population will be leery of the government regardless of party. Invading Iraq against UN treaty alone is against the Constitution and w/ out a Constitution there is no USA. Do to staggering debt, false unemployment numbers, war, 9-11, lies, manipulation and lack of ENERGY the US will collapse.
We might not want it to but sad to say it will fall no matter what we do or say. We no longer have self respect, values, traditions or common sense to guide us. We no longer manufacture goods but instead have a country of lawyers, doctors, politicians, servants and services. Our food is imported when in fact the US’es claim to fame was that “The US Feeds the World”
One lie told begot another and another till the only truth left is that we live in a nation of lies. Should Bush be lynched today we will see that the damage done is so great that it is beyond repair. We are left with the solution as stated in the Constitution that reads…
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”
March 21st, 2007 at 12:57 pmhellinabucket,
just like every President before Bush, US Attorneys serve at the President’s will.
Just like the President Cabinets, US attorneys are political appointments. If you don’t like it change it, but don’t whine about something that every President before Bush has done.
Furthermore, As far as it is known, something the left won’t talk about the 8 US Attorneys that were fired were the one’s being political and being influenced by Democrat and Liberal ideology. This is a small, tiny fact that the media and the Democrats haven’t told the American public. Not to mention that a few of the fired individuals had job performance issues.
regardless, you LIberals are so desperate to take down Bush that whether it is a true scandal or not, you will go after anything he does, good or bad. Be man enough to admit this and maybe I will start taking seriously your rants.
and I deserve everything that it is thrown at me if I don’t respond to your questions? oh please, get off your soap box and come back to reality. You liberals really need to come down from cloud 9.
I mean if I played your game, shane should be insulted beyond being insulted since she like a good liberal has refused to answer any and all questions that have been posted to her.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:03 pmHow sad, but I actually have to agree with (or at least the premise of) something howsad posted, to wit:
why are you liberals so predictable, why?
Progressives/liberals ARE predictable. Why? Because we respond with logic, where conclusions flow predictably from true premises. Because we respond to reality with reality. Because we are consistent with our convictions.
Neoconservatives on the other hand, not so much.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:05 pm#180PatrioticLiberalChristina….
If you keep on telling yourself this enough times, you will start believing your own lies kid.
but what can we expect, you are but a poor liberal.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:08 pmThe attorneys are appointed by the president but after that they are to become apolitical so they can properly execute the matters of law and not be swayed by a political persuasion. So if the Attorneys can push a political agenda are they serving the american people or the president? No soapbox here, just a desire to find the truth. It’s apparent in your rants that you fear the truth. You probably do have something to loose with the neocon empire crumbling.
So just to be clear, howsad’s stance is that it is ok for US attorneys to disregard ethics and legal training and to follow a political agenda. Is that your final answer howsad?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:11 pmThis almost hurts! I’ve got to agree in part with howsad, again.
you LIberals are so desperate to take down Bush that whether it is a true scandal or not, you will go after anything he does, good or bad. Be man enough to admit this and maybe I will start taking seriously your rants.
I AM very desperate to take down Bush from the pedestal he has built for himself, called the Unitary Executive, which is nothing more nor less than a form of UnAmerican Dictatorship. I am sure that he has done some good things (I really don’t have the time or energy to actually try to remember what they were because they were pretty insignificant in the big picture). More importantly, however, Bush has done a great deal of harm, not just to this country, but to the world and not just to this point in time, but for a generation or more to come. So, yes, I want him out of power – either impeached or, at least, neutered. So, howsad, start taking the “rants” seriously, as promised.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:13 pm#183 Bush has not built a pedestal to elevate himself upon he has in fact dug out the ground of law around him to create a chasm!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:23 pmSorry add to that last post this:
March 21st, 2007 at 1:25 pmHe is a common criminal and a war criminal.
reporters need to read his words back to him during the next briefing… Tony, you got some splainin’ to do!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:30 pm#183hellinabucket….
so, explain this, if these are not political appointments, why is it that any and all Presidents before Bush have always cleaned house and put in place their own attorneys who 99% of them are of the same party?
do you honestly believe that under the Clinton administration the US attorneys he appointed were not suppose to follow Clinton’s political agenda? or for that matter those appoiinted by Bush 1, or Reagan, or Carter, etc weren’t suppose to follow that Presidents political agenda?
you have to be quite naive, and never have worked with lawyers to believe that their legal decisions are not based on politics.
If you believe Kenneth Starr investigation was political, you are quite naive, if you think Patrick Fitzgerals investigation wasn’t political you are quite naive. If you believe that the Iran Contra wasn’t prosecuted by politicized lawyers, you are naive.
and oh yeah….I am “terrified” at the so called neocon empire crumbling….what the heck? so I take it you believe Bush is so powerful, and intelligent that in a mere 7 years he was able to built a neocon empire, eh? wow….
March 21st, 2007 at 1:30 pmhellinabucket,
you seem to live in a dream world. you believe that US attorneys can’t be influenced by politics. quite naive of you to believe that.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:30 pmIf you keep on telling yourself this enough times, you will start believing your own lies kid. Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
You sound even more like a *kid*, when you *pretend* to be grown up – j*ck*ss. This *projection* is a real *joke*, just like you.
but what can we expect, you are but a poor liberal.
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Poor liberal? You’re a poor *fascist*, what’s your point dum bass? That liberals are poor? Is that why you and your friends keep *whining* about the latte-sipping *liberal-elite*? I just love the contradictions in your *stereotypes* and hate speech! You can’t even smear consistently – idiot.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:31 pmyou seem to live in a dream world. you believe that US attorneys can’t be influenced by politics. quite naive of you to believe that. Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
You seem to live in a dream world. You believe that US attorneys are at the whim of politics. Quite naive of you to believe that. But shows you’re as big of a *moron* as the rest of the *kids* in charge in washington. Grow a pair – sport. Your childish attitudes are – YAWNNNN Boring ZZZzzz….
March 21st, 2007 at 1:33 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian…
yes, and it is this blind hate for Bush that you so sadly display that has turned off many, many, many people.
You extreme liberals don’t do yourselves any favor with this irrational, crazy, deranged hatred for Bush.
but you do know that what you are typing is pure ridiculous rants, right? Bush will neither be impeached or neutered.
you are quite the sad hateful individual.
do you hate Democrats in Congress as much since they seem to disagree with your rants and raves? you whacko little you.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:33 pmso, explain this, if these are not political appointments, why is it that any and all Presidents before Bush have always cleaned house and put in place their own attorneys who 99% of them are of the same party? Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Hey *kid*, you forgot the point where the senate must approve those appointments. If the Senate doesn’t confirm, a district court (apolitically one would hope) appoints the candidate.
do you honestly believe that under the Clinton administration the US attorneys he appointed were not suppose to follow Clinton’s political agenda? or for that matter those appoiinted by Bush 1, or Reagan, or Carter, etc weren’t suppose to follow that Presidents political agenda? Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
That’s why there’s a senate confirmation, you idiot.
you have to be quite naive, and never have worked with lawyers to believe that their legal decisions are not based on politics. Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
This opinion of yours, is why you CONS are unfit to govern.
If you believe Kenneth Starr investigation was political, you are quite naive, if you think Patrick Fitzgerals investigation wasn’t political you are quite naive. If you believe that the Iran Contra wasn’t prosecuted by politicized lawyers, you are naive. Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
So you think pursuing criminality is just *political*? Whatever Cunningham – you’re an idiot.
and oh yeah….I am “terrified†at the so called neocon empire crumbling….what the heck? so I take it you believe Bush is so powerful, and intelligent that in a mere 7 years he was able to built a neocon empire, eh? wow…. Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Most of the NeoCons came from the Nixon and Ford administration. They spent more than 40 years building it – dum bass.
You’re a st*pid little moron.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:37 pmJonathan Karl just asked Snow about this right now — he had the quote on his blackberry!!Snow is tapdancing – this is not the same, etc. after he made jokes and stalled for time to think of a response.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:38 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Liberal hate and venom spitting in full display…..how sad…all i can do is shake my head at the pure hatred that liberals carry within themselves.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:38 pmRoger Roger,
I have a hard time believing that the president misled congress because of an “honest mistake”. It is well-documented that the PNAC group was planning an invasion of Iraq long before they actually formulated the WMD justification. But even if it were an honest mistake, why are we still there? Most people, when they step in excrement, wipe it off their foot rather than continue to stand in it. An honest mistake is still a mistake, and the Bush administration is showing no signs of corrective action.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:39 pmall these attorneys were/are republicans in the first f*ing place, like most other white collar bureaucrats.
i could give a rat’s ass for bush – it’s the bastards with their hands in the back of his jacket that make his lips move that bother me.
howsad that howsad assumes everyone’s as ignorant and numb as he is.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:40 pmit never fails, liberals always have to throw out the “fascits” insult when they have no intelligent comment to offer.
ahhh my poor little liberals….so much hate and lack of education.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:41 pmyes, and it is this blind hate for Bush that you so sadly display that has turned off many, many, many people. Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
You’re confusing your own attitudes for Clinton (a highly popular president) with the American people’s attitude toward bush (a highly unpopular president.
You extreme liberals don’t do yourselves any favor with this irrational, crazy, deranged hatred for Bush. Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Says the bush cultist, with his irrational, crazy and deranged hatred for liberals, especially those named Clinton.
but you do know that what you are typing is pure ridiculous rants, right? Bush will neither be impeached or neutered. Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
He’s already being neutered, as for impeached, many of us just want him to be neutered. It’s far better for a 2008 election.
As for the “what you are typing is pure ridiculous rants”, project much – dum bass?
you are quite the sad hateful individual. Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Yes you are, do you always talk to yourself in the 3rd person that way? Many crazy people do, you know!
do you hate Democrats in Congress as much since they seem to disagree with your rants and raves? you whacko little you. Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Blah, Blah, Blah – you’re a moron. Do you hate Republicans in Congress, since many of them disagree with your rants and raves on this?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:41 pmLiberal hate and venom spitting in full display…..how sad…all i can do is shake my head at the pure hatred that liberals carry within themselves. Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
Look in the mirror, the display you put on puts everything else to shame…
March 21st, 2007 at 1:41 pmhowsad, the question wasn’t whether they can be persuaded. The question was should we accept that they are persuaded. It really is a simple question. I would think you could answer it without your slants. I also think you choose not to answer it.
Not being niave. I am asking you if you believe the dept. of justice should work on enforcing the laws without undue political pressure.
I never did go into any of the blatherings you shot off like a teenager and a swimsuit mag. I’m sticking to this one point. You jump around more than a page in Foley’s chamber.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:44 pmahhh my poor little liberals….so much hate and lack of education.
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Posting a lie, especially one that’s nothing more than projection of your own inadequacies doesn’t make it true. But it does prove you’re a sad little idiot with too much hate, and a lack of education…
March 21st, 2007 at 1:45 pmliberals always have to throw out the “fascitsâ€
ahhh my poor little liberals….so much hate and lack of education.
Comment by howsadiam — March 21, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Fascits? Fascits? Maybe face zits?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:46 pmWell darn, there goes your example of liberals being less educated, thrown right out the damn window!
NEXT
Jason,
Mr. 39 year old hateful person, so sad that someone that is 39 years old is so full of hate for those that disagree with him.
and are you that lonely Jason that you have to go to Myspace to find some? is this why you are so full of hate and throw out 2 year old insults? such vile, such venom, so much hate.
i pity you kid, i truly do. are you sure you are 39 years old, I mean your posts resemble more the writings of a 2 year old.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:47 pmit never fails, liberals always have to throw out the “fascits†insult when they have no intelligent comment to offer. Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Why do you find a descriptive political term *insulting*, when it accurately describes you? Fascism is a far rightwing ideology that aptly describes your political positions. Just because you have no intelligent comments to offer, don’t be offended when people accurately describe the nature of those uninformed unintelligent ramblings as “fascist” in nature.
You might want to also correct your rightwingnut buddies. They keep using the “commie” *insult* (your words), making you all just a bunch of hypocrites. Don’t you think, little girl?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:47 pmhowsad, #187 was all your own strawmen you put up to shoot down. Why? I never spoke for or against the issues you brought up. I’m sticking on this same issue. Your answers skirt the real question. It wasn’t that the attorneys can be persuaded but should they be allowed to. You haven’t answered this honestly. You shot BS.
Do you work for Savage or just wait breathlessly for his next words?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:49 pmliberals always have to throw out the “fascits†insult when they have no intelligent comment to offer.
Comment by howsad&lonelyiam — March 21, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Oh, did you mean “fascist“???
Well, here’s a little dittie from one of your friends this morning on the thinkfast thread, only he/she/it is not a liberal:
FASCISM!!!
Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — March 21, 2007 @ 10:10 am
March 21st, 2007 at 1:50 pm#195 Believe it or not, we have war plans against most countries we consider our enemies. If you don’t think we already have plans and strategies for attacking North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. is you very mistaken. It is called being prepared. This isn’t a Bush thing, we have done this throughout the history of the USA. No one believes the president and the congress new the intel was fake because we have plans on the books for attacking our enemies. That would be like me saying it is going to rain tommorrow because I have plans to go fishing. The 2 simply don’t make the other true.
You do have one good question though. Why are we still there?
This is more of an opinion then anything else. I am of the opinion that we created this mess, so we are responsible for cleaning it up. Furthermore, I believe that the Dems and Bush at this point simply want to do whatever has the best chance at creating a secure environment that also provides Freedom and Democracy for the Iraqi’s. I believe that our continued presence provides the best chance at accomplishing those goals. Others believe that if we leave, Iraq stands a better chance at the stated goals above. I think neither are incorrect at this point. Us leaving may very well be the best choice. All I hope at this point is that both parties make decisions based on what is best for the Iraqi’s. It wouldbe heartless to not include what is in the Iraqi’s best interests when we make decisions at this point. We simply cannot just look out for what is best for us. I am all ears to here some rational arguement proving that by us leaving, Iraq receives the Freedom, Democracy, and Security they so much deserve. If you can prove that to me, I will back the idea of pulling out 100%. Currently, I have seen better evidence showing they have a better shot at Freedom and Democracy with our help. Again, this isn’t fact, simply opinion.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:50 pmAren’t these the same dingleberries that made the secret service testify against President Clinton. Do the Democrats have the balls to stand up to the Nazi’s in Washington.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/22/lewinsky.scandal/
March 21st, 2007 at 1:51 pmHOWSTUPID-
The Executive Branch DID investigate congress in 2003 using the Justice Department as its POLITICAL TOOL.
They investigated WHO from a Congression committee had LEAKED information about the proceedings.
Bush vowed to find “those responsible”.
Of course, when the investigation led the FBI to Sen. Richard Shelby (R) as the leaker, the investigation was QUIETLY DROPPED.
And “before Tony Snow was in government”, he was a shill for Bush at Fox “news”.
BUSTED!!!!
And if you want to investigate Schumer, get hold of Ken Starr and tell him EVERYTHING YOU KNOW.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
God Bless America, the Democrats and the WORLD!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:58 pmI don’t think this is a “show trial” or “fishing expedition” as Chimpy implied.
This is called CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT and it’s their job and I for one am glad they’re doing it. To allow this administration to continue their lawlessness and trample all over the Constitution would be a travesty.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:00 pmThis administration is going down in history as the most fascist and un-American bunch of incompetents in our nation’s history. Our grandkids will wonder what took us so long.
#205hellinabucket…..
I take it you listen to AirheadAmerican all day long and if you can’t listen to them you run to the New York Times and other liberal sources so that you can put out your liberal rants.
sorry kid, I think Savage is quite hateful, just like all radio personalities in AirHeadAmerica and he does no favors for Conservatives.
so, YOU miss your mark, as always.
and should US attorneys be allow to not be influenced by politics? ok “genius”, tell me how you are going to do that, give US attorneys a labotomy? create machines that read their minds and intentions? i mean i am sure that like a good liberal you wouldn’t mind, but do tell us, young padwan.
whether you believe it or not, want it or no, care for it or not, US Attorneys under ever President have been political appointments and are influenced by this politics, it is ridiculous, dumb, naive, silly, stupid, idiotic to claim other wise.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:02 pmhowsad – back on topic for a sec – if u can handle that – how, exactly, is it ok for Snow to decry Clinton’s alleged abuse of power and defend W’s?? how do Snow’s former comments apply to the current administration’s actions?
call me pessimistic, but somehow i don’t expect you’ll offer any straightforward justification for the apparent reversal of “the conservative point of view”. I’d go ahead and predict your reply myself, but that would be tedious – I’d rather confirm my hypothesis with direct evidence.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:08 pmSo your’e fine with US Attorneys swaying to the politcal powers in charge. You missed the mark with Air America and the NY times but I don’t expect much from you anyways.
You are very good at throwing up your own argument and then shooting it down. You also assume the simplest answer to your argument and then project whomever is the one questioning you. It doesn’t bother me because I’m looking at over 200 postings talking about the limits in which US Attorneys should be influenced. Where would you draw the line of influence from the White House? Anywhere? You do realize the matter of questionable intelligence that led us to invade Iraq is worthy of more investigation. Should the President be able to influence the prosecuters in any way on this matter.
Don’t bring up the past, it’s so typical of you and boring so just stick to this administration the problems they face today.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:21 pm#213hellinabucket,
are you this dense? it is not whether I am fine or not with US attorneys being influenced by political powers….IT IS THE REALITY WE HAVE LIVED IN SINCE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS BORN!
get it now, do you need me to dumb it down for you?
who cares what I am fine with, I live in the real world, not in some pretend Utopia that most of you Liberals live in.
the reality is that ALL US ATTORINEYS Bush’s and those appointed by other Presidents before him have been influenced by politics. whether I am fine with it or not is 100% irrelevant!
March 21st, 2007 at 2:31 pmhellinabucket,
that is like reporters claiming that they aren’t influenced by their own political believes, complete and utter hogwash!
US Attorneys are political appointments…do you know what this means? let us start there…..
define what a “political appointment” means….
March 21st, 2007 at 2:33 pmwhether I am fine with it or not is 100% irrelevant!
March 21st, 2007 at 2:34 pmComment by howsadiam — March 21, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Kinda like your non-debating posts!
[...] White House Press Secretary Tony Snow told the National Review’s Byron York that “[w]e feel pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument” that White House officials don’t have to testify under oath to Congress about the [...]
March 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pmthen to what extent would be acceptable until the letter of the law is affected. Because the Attorneys can sway politically but they can’t change the law. That’s the branch of government that’s wanting to investigate if there were misdeeds. So insult me all you want, it doesn’t bother me. But look at what is going on. The Congress is questioning whether or not there was undo political pressure that may affect the execution of the law of the land. That is overstepping boundaries by the Bush Administration (if found to be true).
That is worhty of getting to the truth whether you like it, support it, defend it or detest it. Just like your insults, it doesn’t matter what you think. It’s the execution of the law and the separation of powers.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pmhellinabucket, the overstepping of boundries is being done by the Democrat control Congress!
Congress has no say, why can’t you be honest enough and admit that this is pure and utterly politically driven, why?
yes, seperation of powers are at play here and it is the Democrats that are stepping over the line, as usual.
A President can appoint and fire US Attorneys at his leisure! it is in the law!
the same law that you claim to know so well. that is what part of being a political appointment means. you and the Democrats going after this are too desperate to destroy this White House and you don’t realize that this is all complete and utter hogwash and it won’t fly in a court of law. This is all going to the judicial branch and you will see how fast it is stopped there.
there is nothing here, but a political driven fishing expedition.
and do you think i care about your insults guy, honestly please. i am sure you know they are just words on a silly little blog. grow up.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:08 pmdefine what a “political appointment†means….
Comment by howsad
A person chosen by the president, and serves at his leisure, whose appointment must be confirmed by the Senate.
But Bush’s end run tried to end that. Did Clinton ever try to short-circuit the nomination process by fiat?
seperation of powers are at play here and it is the Democrats that are stepping over the line, as usual.
It’s not the dems who stepped over the line; or did you miss the 94-2 vote revoking Bush’s folly?
March 21st, 2007 at 3:35 pmThere’s just no pleasing you people.
Comment by shane #92
…many here have forgotten that there IS a process that has to be taken…
…when doing ANYTHING in Congress…
…they look at the years the Repulsivescum controlled the House and Senate…
…and how successful THEY were in getting legislation passed and wonder…
…why can’t Dems do that…
…Failing to realize that there are MORE (Bluedog red state conned’selfservative) Democratic TRAITORS…
…who crossed the line for Repulsivescum…
…than there are Repulsivescum (liberals)…
…Repulsivescum are lockstep, Brownshirt fascists who stay on message…
…and DON’t break ranks (hardly ever anyway)…
…until Democrats get a 60 vote SUPER MAJORITY in the Senate…
…fuhgeddabouit…
March 21st, 2007 at 3:54 pmDon’t worry BP – these scandals (and more) will fester non-stop til fall of ‘08, and that’ll be the end of the end of the gop radicals (aside from their imprint on the SCOTUS)
Letting them completely disgrace and discredit themselves has been the best thing that’s happened in a long, long time, and it will be a long, long time before America will allow itself to be hypnotized by a cabal of overprivileged pikers such as these.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:34 pmTony “Colostomy-Bag” Snow-JOB-Man—-A “HAPPY HYPOCRITE” IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD—-BLITHELY LYING HIS FOOL HEAD OFF AND CARING NOT A WHIT ABOUT FACTS, DETAILS, PRECEDENTS AND PREVIOUS UTTERANCES HE HIMSELF MADE WITH REGARD TO “EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE” WHEN IT INVOLVES HIS BOSSES AT Bushland Uber Allies—-YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE CONVINCING ARGUMENTS TO DEFEND YOUR CRIMINAL MASTERS, Tony, NOT SLOVENLY, ERROR-RIDDEN and SLOPPY EXCUSES THAT ARE SO DULL THEY WOULDN’T CUT SOFT BUTTER, LET ALONE THE MUS-TURD SMEARED ALL OVER YA SAPPY FACE!!!!!
March 21st, 2007 at 7:47 pmYes….. I’m way late so I don’t even know if you will get this shane…….. but just in case……
Shane, are you serious?
Kennedy, Byrd, Pelosi, Durbin, Murtha, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc….
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Nice try but Durbin is my senator and he wasn’t in office then. So you’re down to 4 if those are accurate. So 4 is all you got.
Back to troll-free…3..2..1
Comment by shane — March 21, 2007 @ 11:53 am
A list just for you shane…… Obviously you don’t even know when your Senator served…….. This list comprises those Democrats who served in the 105th Congress as well as the 110th Congress (senators only)
Barbara Boxer Barbara Mikulski Byron Dorgan Carl Levin Christopher Dodd Daniel Akaka Daniel Inouye Dianne Feinstein
Dick Durbin
Edward Kennedy Frank Lautenberg Harry Reid Herb Kohl
Jack Reed
Jay Rockefeller Jeff Bingaman John Kerry
Joseph Biden Joseph Lieberman Kent Conrad
Mary Landrieu Max Baucus Patrick Leahy
Patty Murray Robert Byrd Ron Wyden
Russell Feingold Tim Johnson Tom Harkin
And in case you don’t believe me……
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:03 amhttp://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/105/senate/members/
You might want to also correct your rightwingnut buddies. They keep using the “commie†*insult* (your words), making you all just a bunch of hypocrites. Don’t you think, little girl?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus (to howsad)
Please don’t insult little girls by comparing them to Mr. sosick Hatemonger.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:38 amAbuse of power and the trampling of the Constitution.
Denial of long held rights to free speech and freedom of assembly
Obstruction of justice to protect what are basically traitors at the highest level of government.
The needless deaths and injuries of American soldiers, to defend the interests of a foreign power which has nothing but contempt for those not belonging to their faith or ideology.
People in the US cannot begin to imagine how much the reputation of their country has
been damaged by all this. Millions outside the US who always looked up to your country
as a long standing beacon of fairness and a defender of the basic rights of man have seen it
being subverted by a cabal of criminals who have no regard for human life or dignity, and
are only interested in furthering the cause of Zion.
I for one, still refuse to condenm the American people for this for I know that ultimately
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:47 amthey will rise and remove these criminals from power and restore their constitutional rights
and a government that will truly represent the interests of all American, but please do it
quick before these mad people plunge us all into an abyss.
are you this dense? it is not whether I am fine or not with US attorneys being influenced by political powers….IT IS THE REALITY WE HAVE LIVED IN SINCE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS BORN!
- sorry dude but it has only been since the civil war that this is true—-
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 pmthey either reported to the secretary of treasury or to no one for 80+ years-
Hey we’re working on it as we speak Kim.These asswipes should have been gone long ago because they don’t even belong in power in the first place.Our wonderfully unbiased supreme court installed the creeps,not us.And as for Snow flip-flopping,well imagine my shock.Impeachment is off the table with me because i want to see them frogmarched out of the WH in handcuffs on international television for all to see.Then try them at the Hague and execute.End of nightmare.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:42 pmone thing evident, reading from the top of this thread down:
The lefties are slinging well-deserved mud at corrupt politicians.
The righties are doing nothing in response but mocking the lefties in this thread (except for the townhall poster, whose post includes five blatant mistruths- more on that in my next submission).
The whole thing reminds of some of those family get-togethers of my childhood- angry adults griping about legitimate issues, while in the kitchen the children are all bitching about how stupid and poopy the adults are.
Progressives do best when they just ignore the ignorant, whether in this thread or when planning NOT to debate on Fakes News.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:43 pmChildren children children you just don’t get it. Left or right doesn’t make a damn bit of difference- your crap still stinks. These prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President. Clinton fired a large number en masse in the beginning of his administration. Bush can fire at any time. The sad thing is that the lying and excuses are so pitiful that even young children can see the lie. The single biggest threat to the country and indeed the world is the Lies. They come from the left, they come from the right and the sheeple believe them. It is very sad that the only way for the U.S. to be taken seriously is through economic or military threats. When your leaders cannot even pretend to uphold the letter of the law. As accountability is being forced more and more on the ‘voters’ ( zero tolerance, pay for performance teaching, political correctness right up to and including renditions of U.S. citizens) it is well past time that politicians should be FORCED BY LAW to be accountable for their actions and if convicted of felonies then stripped of any and all government benefits including pensions and healthcare and absolutely under NO circumstances whatsoever admission to ‘country club’ prisons. It is called leadership by example and it obviously does not exist anymore. This is why America is circling the drain regardless of what either of our ‘parties’ does.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:27 pmI think bringing back the gallows is in order for the pols these days.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:36 pmOr even the firing squad.
That’s Okay. They keep up this garbage and they won’t have to worry about any attorneys coming after them. Just 6+/- Million fed up patriots.
howsad is right (in an ingloriously crappy way) Clinton DID call upon Reno not to testify before Burton and an Oversight Committee…EXCEPT (howsad…it’s just…well…sad) this guy fails to mention that Reno and Freeh DID answer the subpoena AND they DID TESTIFY UNDER OATH in front of the Oversight Committee.
Kinda left that little tidbit out of your argument..eh?
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:53 pmDamn the torpedos, Gonzi!! Full Speed Ahead!! Let the whole ship o’ rats go to the bottom of the sea with giant squids where they belong!
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:17 pmsigh, what a jackass
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:23 pmThe psychological profile of a right wing troll:
*They worship authority. Most likely raised in a male dominated, harsh, if not abusive family. Almost all limit-setting was punitive. Victims of abuse learn to “identify with the aggressor,” in order to survive. Not all abused children gow up to be right wing trolls, but most right wing trolls were raised like this.
* They are generally misogynistic and have rigid sex role identities. They never resolved their adolescent confusions about sex and sex roles.
* They overcome strong feelings of insecurity and inadaquacy by feeling superior to those they perceive as weaker than themselves such as women, ethnic and racial minorities, liberals, gays and lesbians, etc.
* They have very low or non existent tolerance for ambiguity. Grey areas in any moral consideration increases anxiety, thus “you are either with us or against us.”
* Trolls like self abuse. They provoke people into saying abusive things to them, which is why they visit sites where they are not wanted and are in a minority.
*Don’t hate trolls, have pity on them.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:23 pmTony Fox is just an alumni whore from Fox News, what can be expected from him but lies for the administration. God it is unbelievable that any portion of Amerika can buy into the crap that this administration doles out. BTW, please don’t refer to AG Gonzalez as “Gonzo”…it is an insult to Hunter Thompson, a true and honest American.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:44 amI wish I had some matches. So many straw men here, it’d make a wonderful bonfire.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:45 am[...] vigorous defender of executive privilege today, Lott — like Tony Snow — has flip-flopped on executive privilege. Lott led the charge against Clinton during the [...]
March 26th, 2007 at 8:03 pm