George “Tricky Dick” Bush
Yes…I know he doesn’t have Richard anywhere in his name.
But he not only has a lot of scandal and secrecy like Nixon, he’s eerily choosing to handle it a lot like him, too.
I’m amazed at how often he finds partisanship where it ISN’T. Members of both parties are calling for Alberto Gonzales head for his role in this scandal, but Tricky Dick Bush says its a Democratic witch hunt.
It is times like this that make me miss the Matt Stone and Trey Parker production, THAT’S MY BUSH.
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 am
I don’t see what’s Tricky Dick about it. The facts are: White House Counsel offered Dems a chance to proffer their questions, only not under oath and without a transcript, which they promptly shrugged off and offered subpoenas for testimony under oath. The Tricky Dick allegory doesn’t fit because Bush isn’t trying to cover his ass- US v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones set the precedents barring such a strategy-what he’s trying to do is maintain the sanctity of confidential executive branch deliberations. Being able to pull any White House staffer into a testimony or confiscate memos or e-mails is akin to taking all the doors off and just allowing open air communications. In the bloodlust for Bush’s head–and, since the Dems won’t get it, the settlement for anyone else in the hierarchy, in this case, Karl Rove, aka Public Enemy #1–at what point do the Dems step back and say, oh, wait, y’know what, this doesn’t make any sense at all. Is it transparency the Dems are looking for or just exploitable cracks? For the Dems, there’s no such thing as ENOUGH. The Justice Dept. turned over 3000 e-mails. It’s not enough. They were OFFERED off-the-record testimony of any official they wanted. It’s not enough.
How is the firing of US Attorneys in any way scandalous? They are political appointees and therefore available for firing if their political priorities go against the Administration’s grain. That’s the LAW. You don’t like it? Um, you’re an elected official in CONGRESS. Earn your paycheck and change it. It’s funny how the Dems don’t mind this when THEIR coach is on the sidelines. Now, if the attorneys were dismissed as a salvo to protect someone or to disrupt a proceeding (1993, Janet Reno fiasco), well, now that’s a horse of a different color. However, that is not the case here.
What the Dems are trying for here isn’t any measure of truth or justice, merely smoke and mirrors. Bush has two years left. Instead of coming in and making America a better place like they campaigned about and ultimately won Congress over with, they’re rather content to sow the seeds of disharmony, and planting in the average, media-absorbing, MSNBC viewing citizenry that chicanery IS going on behind closed doors. Look, America! Bush won’t let us have what we want! He’s a witch! He must be burned! The Dems know that this is a bullshit scheme and only through a long and drawn-out media dramarama (which, by the way, has to cost someone. Let’s see, Nancy Pelosi’s not going to dig into her Gucci, and, well, Ted Kennedy doesn’t have any cash left over after his bar tab…I know, the fucking taxpayer will foot the bill and then we’ll spin it that if the Administration had simply played with us, this would all be avoided. Media spinsters, to your machines!) can they continue to cast aspersions on the Bush administration.
If the question is illegality, then where’s the evidence? If the question is ‘cover up’, then where’s the evidence?
It’s never going to be enough for the Dems until Karl Rove swings. They’ll do the hoo-ha dance for a month and then it’ll be back to the grindstone and they’ll try something else to get at Bush.
You’d figure they’d try to be showing the US public all the good they can do and making good on the promises that got them where they are now. But, predictably, their lust for vengeance is interfering with that.
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:06 am
Jeff…love ya, sir…but there’s no constructive point served by refusing to allow the staffers to answer questions under oath. Closed doors? Fine. Not recorded at all? Spotty. Can’t confirm that they’ll tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? SHAMELESS COVER UP.
What’s to cover up? Hmmmm…one of the attorney’s is rumored to have been let go for her successful prosecution of Republican Duke Snyder and her having another corrupt Republican congressman lined up for prosecution. If the attorneys were let go because they were prosecuting Republicans…”at the pleasure of the President” or not…that’s scandalous. If the President has been saying he wasn’t involved at all…but he actually was…that’s scandalous.
If you don’t see any “Tricky Dick” possibilities here, its because you’re getting your facts off Faux News or Rush OxyContin.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Your hate for Bush has affixed blinders so you’re missing the forest for the trees. And to insult me and make a bald-faced assumption a la one of those knuckleheads on newsarama about where I get my news from is not only surprising (coming from you) and what I thought beneath you, but is ironic since you’re getting your news from, where? MSNBC (at least partially since that’s where the link came from)? Katie Couric? The Times? Five’ll get me ten it’s from a source that swings WAY left. Unless you are a subscriber to an independent peer-reviewed source that is the scourge of the newsprint world. Am I to assume from that last line that instead of debating we’re going to go with name calling and insult throwing?
First off, what’s to cover up? There is NO CRIME that is being investigated (and that’s fact, you can find that statement on ‘news’ reports from either side of the line). Again, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has carte blanche in the case of investigating criminality. However, the Supreme Court has ALSO made it quite clear that executive privilege is protected against political probing. It’s holdings include the sentence “[executive privilege must be provided]the greatest protection” and includes “idle conversations with associates…” Hardly scandalous. Bush has precedent on his side. Published memos also provide evidence that Harriet Miers was the Red Queen and ordered heads lopped off, not Bush.
It’s ’spotty’ that we can’t record and make public all of the conversations made behind closed doors? You don’t think that sensitive information at all could come tumbling out and put people in danger? You don’t think any of the sensitive information that comes out collaterally during testimony and makes the front page of the Times is going to weaken the US at all (economically, militarily, diplomatically) in the eyes of the globe?
Look beneath the rhetoric. The Dems don’t like that someone mentioned “successful anti-terrorist methods” and they want to get answers as to what was done, by whom, and what was gleaned. They don’t like Karl Rove, and want him paraded on national TV in a farce of a trial that will cast aspersions on him and make more of a buffoonery of the administration. More importantly, they’re looking to get someone on the stand, pressure them, and get them to reveal something juicy, or better yet, perjure themselves. And in wartime, you’re okay with certain secrets making the front pages all over the world and the enemy getting a look at the workings of the machine? You don’t think that in any way would transfer to placing our troops in greater danger?
Again, the matter at hand is CRIMINALITY. Once more, if you don’t like the precedent, get it changed. It’s been used since Washington was in office (although abused by Nixon) and it is upheld in the belief that presidents need uncompromised opinions from their advisors and if secrets, documents, and conversations are allowed to be publicly disclosed, it would deter advisors from being forthright. In fact, the only card the president HAS is to remove executive branch officials from their positions (no constitutional authority is bestowed upon him to order them to obey him). If he didn’t, if they were independent, then the defense secretary could double troops in Iraq as he saw fit or the AG could stop bringing cases he didn’t agree with. So he removed one for the alleged reason of her prosecuting Republicans, so what. You impugn the president for making sure he takes of his people or making sure the deck is stacked in his favor, but I bet you don’t care that, in the name of being neutral and fair, Democratic congressmen don’t have to hire Republicans to their staff.
Now, you’re going to go with the argument that these fired attorneys–we’ll focus on Ms. Lam since you brought her up–are canned unjustifiably because they have ‘impeccable performance’, eh? You’re completely shrugging off the Justice Department’s claim that they were unhappy with her for not bringing more immigration cases. Is it just that you don’t LIKE that reason, or you are in a position to have specific information that refutes that claim (and even I won’t deign to support arguments that someone’s lying because I saw it on Fox News)? If you are, I’m impressed and if you get called to the stand to express this expert testimony, I’m going to ask for an autograph.
Now, Harriet Miers wanted to can ALL 93 attorneys back in ‘04 and was countered, a slew more in ‘05 and was countered. Why was she so bloodthirsty? Because she said they weren’t doing enough to investigate voter fraud. So they go through and rank the 93 and can the 7 who aren’t prosecuting a whole line of federal law violations, and sure, some of them allegedly have ‘impeccable records’. So let’s put it in a layman’s allegory: you’ve got a secretary. She’s easy on the eyes, comes to work on time, dresses the part, is a draw for customers. You’re pleased as punch with her. BUT, despite her mandate in the job description, she won’t answer the phone or type dictations. Even after you counsel her, she doesn’t do it. So you fire her. But wait, you’re pleased as punch with her! Yeah, but she’s not doing her JOB. So she goes to the media and says, “Khux fired me because he doesn’t like my hair!” and you become a media pinata because SHE thinks she was fired for improprieties when the bottom line, as you know, is that she wasn’t doing her job. Now, before you lash another insult at me, I would ask you if you have VERIFIABLE and INDEPENDENT proof without a shadow of a doubt that the claims the papers and the news shows are making (because it only needs to be kinda true for it to sell scads of paper and air time) that these AGs are INDEED fired because of alleged ’scandalous’ reasons and NOT because they weren’t performing their jobs? Again, if you do, you are in a fantastic political position and you should be going for your 16th minute as you plaster the media with your sound knowledge. Now, one of the statements in your, well, statement, is that one of the attorneys is “rumored to have been let go for her….” Rumored. The same mill that created the grist of the Duke University scandal that turned out to be…well, the gross machinations of a politically ambitious prosecutor. And the corrupt Republican congressman she had lined up for prosecution….you’re just going to gloss over the ‘alleged’ (I’ll use the ‘a’ word with both sides because, I personally, believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty; maybe it’s because I’m of the opinion that if I get thrown in the hoosegow, I don’t want a noose over my neck before I get my day in court. Just because the news SAYS someone’s guilty before a trial or even the first page of presented evidence, doesn’t exactly make it so.) improprieties of the NM Democrats, huh? Is that because they wear your team’s colors or you know for a fact that NM’s Democrats are clean as a whistle?
These are also POLITICAL APPOINTEES. They’re not civil servants. They serve at the pleasure of the president which is why it’s not unheard of for the whole lot of ‘em to take a bus out of town when a new guy comes in and a whole new team shows up.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I don’t know if I’m going to read a term paper in the comments section, sir…maybe if you boiled things down to the more salient points. ;)
But I will tell you I’m not going to get caught up in your straw man arguments. What crime was committed? I never said there was. Cover-up isn’t only used in the case of crimes, but, also, in the case of scandal (which is, for the record, what I have said Bush has on his hands). Political appointees? Sure. Embarrassing if they were fired directly because they legitimately prosecuted a Republican congressman and were set to do it again? Hell yeah.
You’re allowed to appoint who you want. The attorneys do serve “at the pleasure of the President”, but it is extremely rare for a group of them to be shuttled off in the middle of a second term. It is highly inappropriate to let them go in order to save your fellow Republicans from prosecution. It is very suspicious to have to tell several apparently untrue stories of how the whole thing came to pass. The President or his aides openly lying might not be a crime if it isn’t under oath, but it is, again, a pretty decent scandal.
And, I repeat, that there is no legitimate reason for not allowing the testimony to occur under oath.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Well, see, now you’re changing the tune. Now your case isn’t “there is DEFINITELY something rotten going on” to “boy, that sure was strange that it happened at this point in time”. I’ll give you the second part, sure. But you don’t know the facts. You know what you’re spoonfed by the media, just like I do. Except I KNOW there’s a whole lot of cut and paste going on. You’re conceding that there isn’t a crime. Okay. So then WHY are you hanging Bush in effigy for him not breaking precedent that is hundreds of years old and is backed up by the Supreme Court? He must be villified for that?
Cover up in the case of scandal. Okay, I agree. Um, but in this context, to what scandal is being covered up? You yourself admitted to it being “rumored” that an attorney was let go because of her going after a Republican. You are again villifying Bush on hearsay and conjecture. Also, you do so without bringing White House Counsel into the picture who was the one going after these attorneys in the first place. Once again, you’re taking a big stance that the Justice Department is flat out lying about why these attorneys were let go. “Tis a scandal!” you say. Okay. Where’s your definitive proof?
“It is highly inappropriate to let them go in order to save your fellow Republicans from prosecution”. I agree. Just like a Dem using it for the same purpose is bullshit. HOWEVER, it’s a loophole that exists, and it is a protected privilege. Don’t like it? Change the law. Telling several apparently untrue stories of how the whole thing came to pass….again, you fall on a vagary with “apparently”. Apparently means these ‘truths’ are speculative at best, not backed up in the slightest with evidence. “Several apparently untrue stories”? Since when? And what are these “apparent” stories? Once again, according to memos supplied by the Justice Department, these attorneys were let go because they were not adequately doing their job. Is it he said/she said? Probably. Just like a con getting arrested with a street full of witnesses is going to plead not guilty.
“There is no legitimate reason for not allowing the testimony to occur under oath”? Dude. Come on. Are you serious? Under oath means that all conversations are privy to the public arena. This means that conversations of a sensitive nature, intelligence memos, etc. become open for everyone to see. You don’t think that ANYTHING said in the executive branch has a sensitive nature and needs to be contained within? You don’t at all think that these communications will undermine the government machine? Say you’re a Valerie Plame and your name comes out in testimony and suddenly there it is, for the whole world to see, your cover blown. And that’s just a minor example. What about if it comes out about the FBI’s (et al.) strategy and methodology of collecting information about terror cells or foreign threats, you don’t at all think that will compromise our intelligence efforts and the years of work and in many cases, sacrifices, to protect this country? It’s not just Average Joe who watches the hearings. The whole world does, bad guys especially, and they look for the holes to exploit. Again, you’re not thinking three layers deep to see what can be exposed, how much damage can be done. There is every legitimate reason in the world to maintain the executive privilege. Without it, counsel will clam up or offer advice contrary to the interest of the people, simply because they’re afraid of the boomerang effect and how it’ll come back to bite them in the ass.
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Again with the book report. :p
Justice is supposed to be blind. The second that the President abuses power in the manner he MAY HAVE here, we have problems. There will be a real consequence if that is, indeed, what happened here, because such a consequence is the exercised will of the people.
You keep talking about illegal…I keep pointing out to you that something doesn’t have to be illegal to be scandalous or to be perilous to the rule of law. You keep going back to asking me what is illegal about what happened. Seriously…if you’re cutting and pasting your argument from somewhere else on the ‘net, just gimme the hyperlink and I’ll go read it, picking and choosing what applies to our discussion. :P
Answering questions under oath don’t require them being privy to the public arena. There has been plenty of testimony given under oath that hasn’t been privy to the public (whether whole sessions or just information that was redacted from public transcripts). You don’t want to try to put out falsehoods and generalisms as fact in our discussions. At least ask to do so privately and not under oath…that’s what such things are for: so you can fib and try to pull the wool over someone’s eyes without accountability. :p
By the way…it is hilarious that anyone suggests transparency would lead counsel to OFFER ADVICE CONTRARY TO THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE. If transparency is the cause of that, what’s the administrations excuse, given their level of secrecy and shenanigans? :D