Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
You are sure? Based on what? (certainly not on how they treated Reagan and GHW Bush in oversight)
You're right...I am not sure and see nothing from recent history that would suggest that Dems wont show restraint.
At the very least, the Gonzales affair represents mismanagement or incompetence by the AG, and misleading, contradictory and false information by persons, including the AG , regarding the reasons for the firings and the role of the AG and the WH. At it worst, it raised questions about the greater potential for undue political influence in the criminal justice process (opening the door to 412 WH politicos as opposed to 4 previously raises the opporunity and possibility (not certainty) of potential abuse - its common sense, that IMO, most people would agree with even if you dont), and, potential violations of Senate ethics rules (the questioning of a US attorney by a member of Congress (NM senator) on a pending case and then contacting the AG urging the firing of the attorney)
If this does not meet your test for oversight, what does?
Are there other recent oversight hearings that you would characterize as "revenge motivated" rather than fact-finding?
If not, I would ask again...if you are sure that Dems will act in such a manner, based on what?
|
This is a clear abuse of Congrssional power for political gain.
Quote:
Politics: The House last week passed legislation giving the District of Columbia voting rights in Congress. Is this correcting an injustice or a violation of the Founding Father's intent?
The bill the House passed on Thursday was something long desired by liberal activists nationwide as a prelude to granting D.C. statehood and expanding Democratic numbers in the Senate.
It expands the House of Representatives to 437 from 435, giving one vote to the District and, to dampen charges of political motives, one extra seat to the red state of Utah.
With typical pomposity, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "We know that the citizens of the District of Columbia will give their voices to a vision of justice, equality and opportunity for all. They already have the voice, now they will have the vote."
Would this sentiment have been the same had the District's representative been, say, Rush Limbaugh instead of Eleanor Holmes Norton?
A lot of things in the U.S. Constitution are ambiguous and open to political and judicial debate, but the status of the District of Columbia is not one of them.
"If the citizens of D.C. want voting representation, a constitutional amendment is essential," says Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga.
Indeed it is.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that the "House of Representatives shall be comprised of Members chosen every second Year by People of the several States . . ." and that the "Senate shall be comprised of two Senators from each State . . ."
Well, the District of Columbia is not a state and was deliberately intended by the Founding Fathers not to be one. It is not entitled to representation in either the House or the Senate, unless the Constitution is amended to permit it.
|
http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...62221125418515
It does not clearly fall into the oversight category, but it is clearly Unconstitutional and a political maneuver targeted to the black vote.
The Plame testimony was political, served no purpose other than an attempt to embarass the white House.
Al Gore's global warming testimony was political, served no purpose other than to give Gore a shot at the spot light.
The Gonzales hearings.
Or how about the Finance Committe refusing to give a hearing to Bush nominee for Deputy Comissioner post at SSA, purely political because he supports privatization.
How about Pelosi's trip to Syria, purely political and only served as an attempt to embarass the White House.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trickyy
he did say that, but doesn't that sound like a [weak] excuse? he has no shortage of electronic and paper references, and his staff have already publicly testified.
he selectively forgets things from a few months ago. it's not that he remembers things differently in these instances, his memory is 100% blank.
i don't think he is being honest, and although you did not answer my earlier question about his honesty, i doubt you think he is being honest either.
|
I think he is being political in a political environment where everyone is being political.
At this point I am not sure what the bigger concern is - that he was not deeply involved in the firings and delegated too much, or he was deeply involved and is downplaying his role and the role of others in the White House. So far it looks like he was not deeply involved, which makes this even more pointless, in my view. Everyone knew he got the post because of his relationship with Bush and not based on competence, and now they want us to believe his competence is an issue???
I also think the standard was set after the Libby trial. People would be foolish to give specific testimony under oath if it is not spot on perfect because of the risk of perjury over issues not material to a crime. I would always qualify my answers or say I don't recall, wouldn't you.