It just disgusts me that the Bush Administration seems to have no accountability, ever, towards anyone. They literally seem to do whatever they want, without any fear of repercussion. I mean, the judge that oversaw their case was *appointed by Bush*. Why wouldn't they use someone else? Can't they even pretend to be objective anymore?
Sigh... at least the lier's case was thrown out. We already know who the leaker was, Richard Armitage. Go sue him if you want. Fact is we still don't know if she was even covert or not.
It just disgusts me that the Bush Administration seems to have no accountability, ever, towards anyone. They literally seem to do whatever they want, without any fear of repercussion. I mean, the judge that oversaw their case was *appointed by Bush*. Why wouldn't they use someone else? Can't they even pretend to be objective anymore?
I'm with you on this one but it's been that way for a few years now.. Scooter Libby is most likely going to be pardoned. The White House is flat out refusing subpoenas for documents pertaining to the prosecutor firings. "What next?" is all I keep asking myself..
The case was dismissed on jurisdiction, not on the merits. It can be refiled in the appropriate venue. One of the reasons cases take so long is stuff like this.
Clinton rejected certain subpeonas as well. Every president has. Lawyers often argue over the merits of what they call for and if that is appropriate.
Right now, we have a case of executive priviledge vs. subpoenas by congress. I am of the opinion that Bush does not have a claim to executive priviledge for everything they want to know, but that some parts of their testimony would be covered. I could be right or wrong, and it is up to a judge in the end.
The Bush adminstration handled this particular case using mafia-like tactics. This guy speaks against us? We'll wreck his wife's career, and no one can touch us. Disgusting.
The Bush adminstration handled this particular case using mafia-like tactics. This guy speaks against us? We'll wreck his wife's career, and no one can touch us. Disgusting.
At least he's only wrecking peoples lives...President Putin is flat-out having people gacked...granted that really can't be proven but we all know it's true..
Well, we certainly know it is true, or that he at least must have been involved somehow. After all, you don't kill someone with Polinium, which can be traced back to the specific reactor it was formed in, unless you want to make a statement.
NPR has a fairly popular comedy/news/trivia/current events show called "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me". It's sort of the Daily Show for radio. Anyway, every week they have a special guest and last night was Patrick Fitzgerald (the Illinois State's Attorney who lead Scooter Libby's prosecution). As a parting gift, they gave him a Razor scooter engraved with the phrase, "This one will stay where you put it".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
To comment on the U.S. attourney firings... don't you know that they are hired and fired at the discresion of the president? Did you know that when Bill Clinton was in office he once fired EVERY SINGLE U.S. ATTOURNEY!!!!!!!!!! Do you know where the hearings were for that? There weren't. Why? Because, even though the republicans didn't like it, they knew that U.S. attorneys are hired and fired... at the discretion of the president. This is just an attempt by the liberal left to try and make the Bush administration look bad. This is just an attempt by the Democrat party to try and make the Republicans look worse than themselves.
To comment on the U.S. attourney firings... don't you know that they are hired and fired at the discresion of the president? Did you know that when Bill Clinton was in office he once fired EVERY SINGLE U.S. ATTOURNEY!!!!!!!!!! Do you know where the hearings were for that? There weren't. Why? Because, even though the republicans didn't like it, they knew that U.S. attorneys are hired and fired... at the discretion of the president. This is just an attempt by the liberal left to try and make the Bush administration look bad. This is just an attempt by the Democrat party to try and make the Republicans look worse than themselves.
Uh, can we see a source? You know, some kind of article about Clinton firing attorneys so we know you aren't just pulling things out of your butt? If this did occur, would the supposed fact that Clinton fired all of those attorneys make it right? If Clinton got away with it, why can't Bush?
An attempt by the Democrat party to make Republicans look worse? THATS POLITICS BABY! Thats how the game is played and guess what, neocons are playing the same game except that they hit below the belt when they play.
Uh, can we see a source? You know, some kind of article about Clinton firing attorneys so we know you aren't just pulling things out of your butt?
It's pretty easy to find on your own. Here's a random mention of it from usnews.com. Apparently there are differences:
"Yes," [U.S. News chief legal correspondent Chitra] Ragavan says. "In 1993, Clinton fired all his U.S. attorneys, and there was a Republican outcry that it was motivated to suppress investigations into prominent Democrats, including Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois, and into Clinton's own controversial financial dealings. But that was at the start of Clinton's first term. This time around, the firings are of Bush's own appointees, in his second term."
Factoid: Other stories say that Clinton's purge actually left one Bush I appointee in office: Michael Chertoff.
Bah, I'm busy and it's easily acquired information. Google it or something.
If its so easily acquired YOU google it. If you are too busy then whats the point posting here? You have better ways to spend your time instead of railing against liberals and for that matter, so do I. Good night sir.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
Clinton fired almost all of his attorneys when taking office, and so did Reagan, etc. What's unprecedented with the Bush case is the timing in the mid-term. Story.
To comment on the U.S. attourney firings... don't you know that they are hired and fired at the discresion of the president? Did you know that when Bill Clinton was in office he once fired EVERY SINGLE U.S. ATTOURNEY!!!!!!!!!! Do you know where the hearings were for that? There weren't. Why? Because, even though the republicans didn't like it, they knew that U.S. attorneys are hired and fired... at the discretion of the president. This is just an attempt by the liberal left to try and make the Bush administration look bad. This is just an attempt by the Democrat party to try and make the Republicans look worse than themselves.
Wow, there's some lovely misinformation. We'll just ignore the standard right-wing "b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but CLINTON" argument (which is an immediate "you lose" in a debate because you can't stick to the issue at hand) and proceed straight to the smackdown...
Yes, Clinton fired every U.S. attorney.... right after he took office, when EVERY President cleans house and installs new people.
What Bush did was attempt to intimidate ALL U.S. attorneys by firing the ones that either were investigating his friends for wrongdoing or were refusing to fabricate charges to damage Democrat opponents in key areas. He also did it several years into his presidency, whereas traditionally (as I mentioned above) the mass firings that the right tries to compare this incident to always take place at the beginning of a new President's term.
Please get your facts straight. Right now you're parroting off right-wing talking points and either being intentionally deceptive or willfully ignorant, and neither one of them get you very far in a debate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
L1 MtG judge (L2 coming soon) and Dominion tournament coordinator serving Flint MI and its surrounding cities.
To the best of my knowledge, isn't it pretty much impossible to sue the U.S. government for anything anyways, least of all the President or Vice President? They probably appointed most of the judges, their lawyers are probably 10 times better than yours. I mean seriously, I think you'd have a better chance of seeing Jesus.. And even if you won, by some miracle, they would bury you in appeals until you died.. It really is sad..
W
Yes, Clinton fired every U.S. attorney.... right after he took office, when EVERY President cleans house and installs new people.
What Bush did was attempt to intimidate ALL U.S. attorneys by firing the ones that either were investigating his friends for wrongdoing or were refusing to fabricate charges to damage Democrat opponents in key areas. He also did it several years into his presidency, whereas traditionally (as I mentioned above) the mass firings that the right tries to compare this incident to always take place at the beginning of a new President's term.
Now who needs to cite to some relevant authority. I see two statements (the every president line and the one about midterm firings) that need some evidence to back them up. First off, I don't think Bush 1 fired all of his U.S. attorneys and, second, I don't believe it is so outlandish to get rid of appointees after the midterm elections.
What people are forgetting is that the U.S. attorneys, like cabinet members and many others, serve at the whim of the President. They are pure political appointees who can be "fired" for any reason including a terrible sense of style, bad makeup, and failing to wear brown shoes with a blue suit. It may strike some as distasteful but it isn't illegal.
Finally, like OMG, its called executive privilege. S ee the wikipedia entry on exeuctive privilege -- "In 1998, President Bill Clinton became the first President since Nixon to assert executive privilege and lose in court, when a Federal judge ruled Clinton aides could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal." It traces the history of executive privilege from Washington to the present.
As for Palme, she has a lot of problems with her case and she will probably lose at the appellate level and then have cert denied by the Supreme Court. I don't think she has a real cause of action under the Federal Tort Claims act. She is probably just trying to drum up publicity for her book and the talk show circuit. I'm sure she can get a job at MSNBC as some kind of expert.
The fact that every president cleans house when he begins his term is a fact accepted by both sides, so I figured there's hardly a need to cite relevant sources for it. The only difference is that the right is trying to take the traditional house cleaning at the beginning of a term and make it sound like Bush did the same thing.
As for serving at the whim of the President, that's true. But the only people that don't see the blatant intimidation tactic here (firing attorneys that were investigating corrupt lackeys of the President or were refusing to manufacture fake / premature charges to help alter election results) are the most fanatical right-wing supporters that believe Bush can do no wrong. Debate the legality all you want, but ethically and morally? No doubt that it was wrong.
As far as Plame goes, Bush freakin' said it himself recently that his administration leaked her name and it was time to move on. Before it was revealed how high up this crime went in the administration, the head of the RNC and Bush I went as far as to call it treasonous.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
L1 MtG judge (L2 coming soon) and Dominion tournament coordinator serving Flint MI and its surrounding cities.
The whole fact of the matter is that the Bush administration continues to do what it wants, when it wants to, with a blatant disregard for policies, procedures, or public opinion. Why do you right-wing conservatives out there continue to defend this man and his administration? What has he done for you?
Seriously, I want to know what makes this man and his presidency so special that you're willing to disagree with 65+% of the people in this country?
I am neither right wing nor conservative. I just have a problem with blowing things way out of proportion, regardless of who it targets. I don't think there is anything unusual about firings of attorneys for political reasons, regardless of if it is a good idea or not. Trying to cover it up and stonewall afterwards is the more serious issue to me, but just goes back to the standard criticism of Bush and Cheney that they are secretive and obstinant. We know, we know, move on. It is as annoying as the Republicans constantly talking about Bill Clinton's sex life. We get it, leave it to Leno. Let's actually talk about pressing issues.
It is sort of like how they got Al Capone on income tax evasion, rather than murder, racketeering, or any of the other stuff. Only this won't be the thing to take Bush down (if anything can), so why bother with it?
The whole fact of the matter is that the Bush administration continues to do what it wants, when it wants to, with a blatant disregard for policies, procedures, or public opinion. Why do you right-wing conservatives out there continue to defend this man and his administration? What has he done for you?
Seriously, I want to know what makes this man and his presidency so special that you're willing to disagree with 65+% of the people in this country?
Well, I'm glad to see that dissent from the "moral" majority is viewed as just plain wrong and that public opinion is always right (sarcasm for the record). Public opinion on such things as race and women's rights were so great in the past (again sarcasm).
The last time I looked, I thought free speech encouraged dissent and making people think through their views. So, let's parse through what you are saying - First, that the President has an obligation to follow "public opinion" and undefined "policies" and "procedures." As I noted above, "public opinion" is not a good source of what's right and wrong. Public opinion favored segregation and the suppression of women's rights. Did that make it right? Under your reasoning, it did. And, let us not forget that the voters elected Bush so, again, under your reasoning, that makes him right. As for the "policies" and "procedures", I think you need to define it. I don't recall those words in the Constitution and, if you are referring to the Code of Federal Regulations, then you need to point to what policies or procedures were violated. As I pointed out earlier, the President has the right to dismiss his appointees for _any_ reason. You may disagree with the reasoning, but it isn't _illegal_ and there is no policy or procedure against it.
As for defending the President, I would say that on this issue I would have defended any President including Clinton's dismissal of all of the previous U.S. attorneys. Apparently, you don't appreciate any dissent from your views and label those who don't agree with you as "right-wing conservatives". It is similar to McCarty labeling any dissent as communists.
Don't get so high and mighty Assassin.
Just because someone disagrees with what you say doesn't mean they are infringing on your freedom of speech. You have the right to say whatever you want but we have the right to tell you how stupid we think it is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
I commend you on your ability to use three paragraphs to comment on my four sentences. I'm also amazed that you know exactly how my mind works and what I meant with the words I said. I'd keep that ability under wraps or the government might come looking for you for their Sector 7 Super Secret Ops.
When did I say that public opinion was always right? I don't remember using those words..perhaps I blacked out and said them in my dreams.
And, let us not forget that the voters elected Bush so, again, under your reasoning, that makes him right.
Hmm, well he lost the first election...recounts have proven that. And the second he only won by riding the gay marriage amendment. So in that regard I'll give you half credit.
First, that the President has an obligation to follow "public opinion"
We, as a country and a representative democracy, gave him his job so yeah, I think that he has some responsibility to at least listen to those people. Are the people always going to be right? Of course not, and I never said they were. But when hardly anyone approves of the job you're doing..there has to be a pretty good reason don't you think?
Apparently, you don't appreciate any dissent from your views and label those who don't agree with you as "right-wing conservatives". It is similar to McCarty labeling any dissent as communists.
Long live free speech and challenge authority.
Again with making assumptions. I appreciate any and all dissent from my views. I encourage it whole-heartedly as someone who defended free speech and every other right you hold dear for 6 years as a member of this country's armed forces. Aren't you surprised that they let a rascist, hate-mongering, self-centered ***hole like me in? But I digress, you're absolutely right, every last person that disagrees with me is a dirty Commie that deserves the worst possible torture that a human can think of...Teletubbies.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
EDH:
Karn v3.0
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It just disgusts me that the Bush Administration seems to have no accountability, ever, towards anyone. They literally seem to do whatever they want, without any fear of repercussion. I mean, the judge that oversaw their case was *appointed by Bush*. Why wouldn't they use someone else? Can't they even pretend to be objective anymore?
I'm with you on this one but it's been that way for a few years now.. Scooter Libby is most likely going to be pardoned. The White House is flat out refusing subpoenas for documents pertaining to the prosecutor firings. "What next?" is all I keep asking myself..
EDH:
Karn v3.0
The case was dismissed on jurisdiction, not on the merits. It can be refiled in the appropriate venue. One of the reasons cases take so long is stuff like this.
Clinton rejected certain subpeonas as well. Every president has. Lawyers often argue over the merits of what they call for and if that is appropriate.
Right now, we have a case of executive priviledge vs. subpoenas by congress. I am of the opinion that Bush does not have a claim to executive priviledge for everything they want to know, but that some parts of their testimony would be covered. I could be right or wrong, and it is up to a judge in the end.
At least he's only wrecking peoples lives...President Putin is flat-out having people gacked...granted that really can't be proven but we all know it's true..
EDH:
Karn v3.0
NPR has a fairly popular comedy/news/trivia/current events show called "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me". It's sort of the Daily Show for radio. Anyway, every week they have a special guest and last night was Patrick Fitzgerald (the Illinois State's Attorney who lead Scooter Libby's prosecution). As a parting gift, they gave him a Razor scooter engraved with the phrase, "This one will stay where you put it".
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Uh, can we see a source? You know, some kind of article about Clinton firing attorneys so we know you aren't just pulling things out of your butt? If this did occur, would the supposed fact that Clinton fired all of those attorneys make it right? If Clinton got away with it, why can't Bush?
An attempt by the Democrat party to make Republicans look worse? THATS POLITICS BABY! Thats how the game is played and guess what, neocons are playing the same game except that they hit below the belt when they play.
*edit*But then they cry when liberals play back.
There is an imposter among us...
Factoid: Other stories say that Clinton's purge actually left one Bush I appointee in office: Michael Chertoff.
There is an imposter among us...
If its so easily acquired YOU google it. If you are too busy then whats the point posting here? You have better ways to spend your time instead of railing against liberals and for that matter, so do I. Good night sir.
There is an imposter among us...
Wow, there's some lovely misinformation. We'll just ignore the standard right-wing "b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but CLINTON" argument (which is an immediate "you lose" in a debate because you can't stick to the issue at hand) and proceed straight to the smackdown...
Yes, Clinton fired every U.S. attorney.... right after he took office, when EVERY President cleans house and installs new people.
What Bush did was attempt to intimidate ALL U.S. attorneys by firing the ones that either were investigating his friends for wrongdoing or were refusing to fabricate charges to damage Democrat opponents in key areas. He also did it several years into his presidency, whereas traditionally (as I mentioned above) the mass firings that the right tries to compare this incident to always take place at the beginning of a new President's term.
Please get your facts straight. Right now you're parroting off right-wing talking points and either being intentionally deceptive or willfully ignorant, and neither one of them get you very far in a debate.
EDH:
Karn v3.0
Now who needs to cite to some relevant authority. I see two statements (the every president line and the one about midterm firings) that need some evidence to back them up. First off, I don't think Bush 1 fired all of his U.S. attorneys and, second, I don't believe it is so outlandish to get rid of appointees after the midterm elections.
What people are forgetting is that the U.S. attorneys, like cabinet members and many others, serve at the whim of the President. They are pure political appointees who can be "fired" for any reason including a terrible sense of style, bad makeup, and failing to wear brown shoes with a blue suit. It may strike some as distasteful but it isn't illegal.
Finally, like OMG, its called executive privilege. S ee the wikipedia entry on exeuctive privilege -- "In 1998, President Bill Clinton became the first President since Nixon to assert executive privilege and lose in court, when a Federal judge ruled Clinton aides could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal." It traces the history of executive privilege from Washington to the present.
As for Palme, she has a lot of problems with her case and she will probably lose at the appellate level and then have cert denied by the Supreme Court. I don't think she has a real cause of action under the Federal Tort Claims act. She is probably just trying to drum up publicity for her book and the talk show circuit. I'm sure she can get a job at MSNBC as some kind of expert.
As for serving at the whim of the President, that's true. But the only people that don't see the blatant intimidation tactic here (firing attorneys that were investigating corrupt lackeys of the President or were refusing to manufacture fake / premature charges to help alter election results) are the most fanatical right-wing supporters that believe Bush can do no wrong. Debate the legality all you want, but ethically and morally? No doubt that it was wrong.
As far as Plame goes, Bush freakin' said it himself recently that his administration leaked her name and it was time to move on. Before it was revealed how high up this crime went in the administration, the head of the RNC and Bush I went as far as to call it treasonous.
Seriously, I want to know what makes this man and his presidency so special that you're willing to disagree with 65+% of the people in this country?
EDH:
Karn v3.0
It is sort of like how they got Al Capone on income tax evasion, rather than murder, racketeering, or any of the other stuff. Only this won't be the thing to take Bush down (if anything can), so why bother with it?
Well, I'm glad to see that dissent from the "moral" majority is viewed as just plain wrong and that public opinion is always right (sarcasm for the record). Public opinion on such things as race and women's rights were so great in the past (again sarcasm).
The last time I looked, I thought free speech encouraged dissent and making people think through their views. So, let's parse through what you are saying - First, that the President has an obligation to follow "public opinion" and undefined "policies" and "procedures." As I noted above, "public opinion" is not a good source of what's right and wrong. Public opinion favored segregation and the suppression of women's rights. Did that make it right? Under your reasoning, it did. And, let us not forget that the voters elected Bush so, again, under your reasoning, that makes him right. As for the "policies" and "procedures", I think you need to define it. I don't recall those words in the Constitution and, if you are referring to the Code of Federal Regulations, then you need to point to what policies or procedures were violated. As I pointed out earlier, the President has the right to dismiss his appointees for _any_ reason. You may disagree with the reasoning, but it isn't _illegal_ and there is no policy or procedure against it.
As for defending the President, I would say that on this issue I would have defended any President including Clinton's dismissal of all of the previous U.S. attorneys. Apparently, you don't appreciate any dissent from your views and label those who don't agree with you as "right-wing conservatives". It is similar to McCarty labeling any dissent as communists.
Long live free speech and challenge authority.
Just because someone disagrees with what you say doesn't mean they are infringing on your freedom of speech. You have the right to say whatever you want but we have the right to tell you how stupid we think it is.
There is an imposter among us...
I commend you on your ability to use three paragraphs to comment on my four sentences. I'm also amazed that you know exactly how my mind works and what I meant with the words I said. I'd keep that ability under wraps or the government might come looking for you for their Sector 7 Super Secret Ops.
When did I say that public opinion was always right? I don't remember using those words..perhaps I blacked out and said them in my dreams.
Hmm, well he lost the first election...recounts have proven that. And the second he only won by riding the gay marriage amendment. So in that regard I'll give you half credit.
We, as a country and a representative democracy, gave him his job so yeah, I think that he has some responsibility to at least listen to those people. Are the people always going to be right? Of course not, and I never said they were. But when hardly anyone approves of the job you're doing..there has to be a pretty good reason don't you think?
Again with making assumptions. I appreciate any and all dissent from my views. I encourage it whole-heartedly as someone who defended free speech and every other right you hold dear for 6 years as a member of this country's armed forces. Aren't you surprised that they let a rascist, hate-mongering, self-centered ***hole like me in? But I digress, you're absolutely right, every last person that disagrees with me is a dirty Commie that deserves the worst possible torture that a human can think of...Teletubbies.
EDH:
Karn v3.0