Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-06-2008, 09:16 AM   #121 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
ace: for what it's worth, i wasn't really referencing you in my post--if i had meant to do so, i would have done it directly. no need for passive-aggressive stuff here.

yours is a curious alternative position--you seem to want to dissolve the rule violations as you acknowledge that "something" happened---in a way, you're more forthcoming than others, who won't go down the list of problems and try to explain them away. i disagree with the operation, but i understand (i think) the logic behind your position. the adjami piece does the same thing.

i just dont buy it.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 09:27 AM   #122 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
I can't think of the who said it but didn't someone from within the White house talk about "rolling out a new product" and the timing? Didn't he say this months and months ago? I know I heard or read this somewhere,
It was Andrew Card, the WH Chief of Staff at the time and the "marketing strategy" was to use Bush's first 9/11 anniversary speech for the occasion:
Quote:
White House officials said today that the administration was following a meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein.

The rollout of the strategy this week, they said, was planned long before President Bush's vacation in Texas last month. It was not hastily concocted, they insisted, after some prominent Republicans began to raise doubts about moving against Mr. Hussein and administration officials made contradictory statements about the need for weapons inspectors in Iraq.

The White House decided, they said, that even with the appearance of disarray it was still more advantageous to wait until after Labor Day to kick off their plan.

''From a marketing point of view,'' said Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff who is coordinating the effort, ''you don't introduce new products in August.''

A centerpiece of the strategy, White House officials said, is to use Mr. Bush's speech on Sept. 11 to help move Americans toward support of action against Iraq, which could come early next year.


http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/08/pos...-war-with.html
IMO, nothing is more immoral that using the national tragedy of 9/11 to try to "sell" a war against someone who had nothing to do with it.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-06-2008 at 09:40 AM.. Reason: added link
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 09:42 AM   #123 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
It was Andrew Card, the WH Chief of Staff at the time in the fall of 02 and to use Bush's first 9/11 anniversary speech for the occasion:

IMO, nothing is more immoral that using the national tragedy of 9/11 to try to "sell" a war against someone who had nothing to do with it.
Wow, that long ago? I'm a little surprised by that.

But really, Scott's book, Richard Clarke's book and any number of statements and/or memos.. it doesn't matter and probably won't. The President could walk out to the Rose Garden tomorrow and announce to the press "this was the biggest, dumbest mistake in American history." There would still be people who wouldn't believe it. I can hear it now. You could just remove Scott's name from the current "talking points" and insert Bush. You'd end up with "This isn't the Bush I know."
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 09:48 AM   #124 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
I think Rockefeller had it right when he said, on the release of the latest Senate Intel report:
Quote:
“These reports represent the final chapter in our oversight of prewar intelligence. They complete the story of mistakes and failures – both by the Intelligence Community and the Administration – in the lead up to the war. Fundamentally, these reports are about transparency and holding our government accountable, and making sure these mistakes never happen again,” Rockefeller added.
I would add the same about McClellan's book, Clark's book, and discussions here and political forums everywhere, in Congress, and on the campaign trail:
Its about transparency and holding our government accountable, and making sure these mistakes (and misrepresentations) never happen again.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 11:54 PM   #125 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: way out west
So does anybody simply think they are all idiots and not scoundrels? There are checks and balances to prevent those mistakes. It's hardly the first time.

Those are impeachable offenses at the least.
fastom is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 03:15 AM   #126 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastom
So does anybody simply think they are all idiots and not scoundrels? There are checks and balances to prevent those mistakes. It's hardly the first time.

Those are impeachable offenses at the least.
Maybe but the numbers don't add up. As long as the GOP sticks with the POTUS et el, circle the wagons so to speak, there's nothing the Dems can do. Even if they wanted to, which I suspect some do not. It much like the war and removing troops. The Dems control congress but not by enough to really make a major difference.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 04:31 AM   #127 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
I wonder about after they're out of office. Are there crimes they can be held accountable for after the fact?
ratbastid is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 05:32 AM   #128 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
I wonder about after they're out of office. Are there crimes they can be held accountable for after the fact?
The next president can absolutely order his Attorney General to investigate if Bush and any WH (or administration) officials or staff violated any federal criminal statutes that could be subject to prosecution...particularly in light of the efforts by the WH to stall numerous oversight investigations for the last year and a half.

It is more a political issue rather than a legal issue that Obama would have to face, if elected.

What Obama said he would do:
Quote:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/a...n_torture.html
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-09-2008 at 05:38 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 06:20 AM   #129 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
I wonder about after they're out of office. Are there crimes they can be held accountable for after the fact?

Sure and I'm not totally opposed to that. But in all seriousness I think we have so many issues we need to work on I'm not sure how much energy and effort I want to see going into this endeavor.

Long and short- Justice dept. investigation, fine. Endless congressional hearings beating this into the ground, NO.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 07:21 AM   #130 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
From Senator Clinton, June 7, 2008, profound words that have application beyond her original intent -

Quote:
Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/p...nton-text.html

There is nothing to be gained from impeachment proceedings or further investigations regarding what lead us to war in Iraq. Effort should be spent on ending the war and accomplishing our goals within Iraq.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 07:50 AM   #131 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Sure and I'm not totally opposed to that. But in all seriousness I think we have so many issues we need to work on I'm not sure how much energy and effort I want to see going into this endeavor.

Long and short- Justice dept. investigation, fine. Endless congressional hearings beating this into the ground, NO.
Tully...IMO, there are two separate and distinct endeavors.

I strongly believe that Obama should proceed on a legal track with regard to Bush's expansive claim of executive privilege (claiming that it applies not only to conversations or documents between the president and a suboordinate, but to conversations/documents between two suborinates w/o the direct involvement of the president.

I also believe we need further review (either judicicial or congressional) over potential violations of US international treaty obligations (particularly regarding treatment of non-combatants)

These both has serious implications beyond Bush.

I think it is also important to separate Congressional oversight hearings from possbile crimininal investigations by the incoming DoJ.

Oversight hearings serve a diferent purpose...not to determine criminal violations, but to determine a need for new/additional legislation as a result of potential (non-criminal) abuses by the outgoing admin.

IMO, this applies to the issue of usingn intel to suit a political agenda at the expense of full disclosure of relevant conflicting intel, several "open government" issues, government contracting issues, issues of interference by political apppointees in the scientific studies of government agencies, etc.

The most important "change" that Obama can implement, IMO, is to assure the American people that it will not be "business as usual". The government will be more transparent, open and accountable and the concept of checks and balances and separation of powers will be honored (that means no "signing statements" that change the intent of law, no unilateral interepretation of "executive powers," no expansive claims of executive privilege, no attempts to block any valid FOIA requests, no politicizing of govt scientific studies, etc.....)
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-09-2008 at 07:54 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 07:51 AM   #132 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Well it might be nice to investigate to ensure we learn from our mistakes. Plus I personally believe there are folks who should be held accountable for this mess. Some for their actions and some for their inactions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Tully...IMO, there are two separate and distinct endeavors.

I strongly believe that Obama should proceed on a legal track with regard to Bush's expansive claim of executive privilege (claiming that it applies NOT only to conversations or documents between the president and a suboordinate, but to conversations/documents between two suborinates w/o the direct involvement of the president.

I also believe we need further review (either judicicial or congressional) over potential violations of US international treaty obligations (particularly regarding treatment of non-combatants)

These both has serious implications beyond Bush.

I think it is also important to separate Congressional oversight hearings from possbile crimininal investigations by the incoming DoJ.

Oversight hearings serve a diferent purpose...not to determine criminal violations, but to determine a need for new/additional legislation as a result of potential (non-criminal) abuses by the outgoing admin.

IMO, this applies to several "open government" issues, government contracting issues, issues of interference by political apppointees in the scientific studies of government agencies, etc.

The most important "change" that Obama can implement, IMO, is to assure the American people that it will not be "business as usual". The government will be more transparent, open and accountable and the concept of checks and balances and separation of powers will be honored (that means no "signing statements" that change the intent of law, no unilateral interepretation of "executive powers," no expansive claims of executive privilege, no attempts to block any valid FOIA requests, no politicizing of govt scientific studies, etc.....)

Those are good points. My fear is oversight hearings could plunge into massive political games and partisan BS.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Last edited by Tully Mars; 06-09-2008 at 07:54 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 08:28 AM   #133 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
From Senator Clinton, June 7, 2008, profound words that have application beyond her original intent -



http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/p...nton-text.html

There is nothing to be gained from impeachment proceedings or further investigations regarding what lead us to war in Iraq. Effort should be spent on ending the war and accomplishing our goals within Iraq.
Every moment waisted waiting keeps us from preventing ongoing and future crimes and unethical behavior.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 09:03 AM   #134 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Every moment waisted waiting keeps us from preventing ongoing and future crimes and unethical behavior.
We been down this road many time in our history. Heck, even when there was real evidence of wrong doing, i.e. Nixon - the nation did absolutely nothing.

So, in this case, you certainly will never get a consensus on any wrong doing by the Executive Branch and any actions taken by Democratic Party leaders will be perceived by at least half of the nation as partisan - so I ask you one simple question: What would be gained?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 09:31 AM   #135 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
We been down this road many time in our history. Heck, even when there was real evidence of wrong doing, i.e. Nixon - the nation did absolutely nothing.
This is a pretty good point. I will just observe, though, that Nixon's approval rating November 1973 was three points higher than Bush's right now. That takes something. You've got to be bad at being President to poll lower than Nixon at the height of Watergate.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 10:00 AM   #136 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
We been down this road many time in our history. Heck, even when there was real evidence of wrong doing, i.e. Nixon - the nation did absolutely nothing.
I'm way too young to remember this, but student activism was rather massive during the Nixon Administration. Between Vietnam and Watergate, people were actually pissed. Why do you think the legislative branch actually had the balls to impeach him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
So, in this case, you certainly will never get a consensus on any wrong doing by the Executive Branch and any actions taken by Democratic Party leaders will be perceived by at least half of the nation as partisan - so I ask you one simple question: What would be gained?
Half the nation? More like 25%, if that. It's not 2004, you know.

What will be gained? How about a year of freedom for innocent men, women and children? How about unconstitutional wiretaps? How about a year's worth of Iraq War money? How about Kyoto? How about letting Adam and Steve get hitched? I could write books on the things Bush not only has done wrong, but continues to do wrong in office, to the detriment of the American people (you included).
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 10:19 AM   #137 (permalink)
Banned
 
Background thread on Bush's "interview" in the Plame leak investigation:

"If Rove is Indicted, Will Media Mention Bush's Criminal Defense Attorney Jim Sharp?"

The potential is still here for an "express" double impeachment, reinstatement of Libby's prison sentence, since a co-conspirator in a criminal cover up, cannot validly issue a sentence commutation for a sentence associated with the same criminal matter..... but, only a potential for it to happen....at least for now:

Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/08/duffy-waxman-plame/
Duffy: ‘White House Lawyers Are Concerned’ McClellan’s Book Will Reignite ‘The Valerie Plame Business’»

In his explosive new memoir, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan claims that Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, “and possibly Vice President Cheney” encouraged him to “repeat a lie” to the American people about the administration’s role in the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity. This assertion, along with others, has led members of Congress, like House Oversight Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), to again ask questions about the CIA leak scandal.

On NBC’s The Chris Matthews Show today, Time magazine assistant managing editor Michael Duffy said that the renewed attention to the scandal is causing White House lawyers to be “very concerned”:

DUFFY: White House lawyers are concerned, very concerned,
now that Scott McClellan’s book has led Henry Waxman and John Conyers to take another look at the Valerie Plame business. There may be hearings. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald may be called. Just another way in which a Democratic Congress might make a difference during the fall.

Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/08/duffy-waxman-plame/

Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...0,195629.story
Rep. Waxman seeks access to Bush, Cheney interviews on CIA leak
The leading Democrat says the memoir by former Press Secretary Scott McClellan raises new questions about the White House's role in divulging the identity of then-CIA operative Valerie Plame.
By Richard B. Schmitt
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

June 4, 2008

WASHINGTON — House investigators pressed their case Tuesday for access to interviews that a special counsel conducted with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in the CIA leak case.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) said in a letter to the Justice Department that the transcripts were needed to address what he described as troubling new questions about the role of the White House in divulging the identity of then-CIA operative Valerie Plame in 2003.

Waxman cited passages from the recent memoir of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. McClellan wrote that he thought he had been deceived into telling reporters that then-White House aides I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Karl Rove were not involved in the episode. Aside from receiving assurances from the two men, McClellan described a meeting in which Bush and Cheney decided to have McClellan issue a special statement saying that Libby had no involvement.

Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the case. Rove was not charged, but he told investigators that he had spoken with reporters about Plame.

Plame's identity became public as the administration was scrambling to rebut criticism from her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former U.S. envoy in Baghdad, about the decision to invade Iraq. He had taken a CIA-backed trip to the African nation of Niger that he said had disproved an administration claim that Iraq was seeking material there to make nuclear weapons. That claim was one of the grounds used to justify the invasion.

McClellan wrote in his memoir that he did not believe that Bush knew that Libby or Rove were involved in the leaks. But he said that he could not be certain what Cheney knew; at the time, Libby was the chief of staff to the vice president.

Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a letter to Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey on Tuesday that "it would be a major breach of trust if the vice president personally directed Mr. McClellan to mislead the public."

Waxman first asked for access to White House interviews with special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald in December as part of an investigation into how the White House handled and investigated the leak. The Justice Department made available some, but not all, of the information, including redacted versions of interviews with Rove, Libby and other senior officials.

Waxman said those transcripts revealed other information that needed to be pursued. One question, he said, was whether Cheney directed Libby to circulate the fact that Plame was employed by the CIA as part of a campaign to discredit Wilson and insinuate that his trip to Africa was the product of nepotism.

The White House referred calls for comment to the Justice Department.

"The Justice Department will review Chairman Waxman's letter and respond as appropriate," spokesman Peter A. Carr said Tuesday.

William Jeffress Jr., a lawyer for Libby, whose 30-month prison sentence for the perjury-and-obstruction conviction last year was commuted by Bush, criticized the congressional request.

McClellan, he said, testified before the grand jury and was interviewed by Fitzgerald more than once.

"You can be certain that if he had evidence that Scooter or Rove obstructed justice, Fitzgerald would have called him as a witness at trial," Jeffress said. It is "unbelievable that Rep. Waxman thinks there is something to be learned or accomplished by continuing this farce."
Last week, Waxman sent a letter
to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, requesting that the Justice Department turn over FBI interviews of President Bush and Cheney that were conducted during the CIA leak scandal investigation. In the letter, Waxman cited “new revelations” from McClellan’s book, including the claim that “[t]he President and Vice President directed me to go out there and exonerate Scooter Libby.”

Additionally, White House lawyers are likely “concerned” that CIA leak special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indicated this week that he would be willing to testify before Congress about alleged efforts to push him off of politically sensitive cases like the leak scandal.

As Duffy said, this “could make things rough for everyone who was affiliated with the Plame affair.”
....and this, just in.....

Quote:
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1996
Monday, June 09, 2008
Administration Oversight
Committee Releases Proposed Abramoff Report

Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Davis issued a proposed Committee report on White House contacts with Jack Abramoff that concludes that Mr. Abramoff had personal contact with President Bush, that high-level White House officials held Mr. Abramoff and his associates in high regard and solicited recommendations from them on policy matters, that Mr. Abramoff and his associates influenced some White House actions, and that Mr. Abramoff and his associates offered White House officials expensive tickets and meals.

Documents and Links

* Proposed Report: Jack Abramoff's Contacts with White House Officials (287 KB)
* Memo: Full Committee Business Meeting on Proposed Abramoff Report (40 KB)
* The 2006 Abramoff Investigation
* Deposition of Ruben Barrales (2 MB)
* Deposition of Jennifer Farley (2 MB)
* Deposition of Tracy Henke (2 MB)
* Deposition of Monica Kladakis (1 MB)
* Deposition of Ken Mehlman (3 MB)
* Deposition of Matthew Schlapp (4 MB)
* Deposition of Padgett Wilson (3 MB)
* Greenberg Traurig Documents (1 MB)
* White House Documents (3 MB)
* State Department Documents (294 KB)
* White House Photos (5 MB)
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060126.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 26, 2006

...Q What do you hear or your staff hear about releasing of photographs of Jack Abramoff with you, Mr. President? If you say you don't fear anything, tell us why you won't release them?

THE PRESIDENT: She's asking about a person who admitted to wrongdoing and who needs to be prosecuted for that. There is a serious investigation going on, as there should be. The American people have got to have confidence in the -- in the ethics of all branches of government. You're asking about pictures -- I had my picture taken with him, evidently. I've had my picture taken with a lot of people. Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with them or know them very well. I've had my picture taken with you -- (laughter) -- at holiday parties.

My point is, I mean, there's thousands of people that come through and get their pictures taken. I'm also mindful that we live in a world in which those pictures will be used for pure political purposes, and they're not relevant to the investigation.

Q Do you know how many?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't have any idea. ...

...Dana.

Q Mr. President, you talked about Jack Abramoff in the context of pictures, but it may not necessarily just be about pictures. He also had some meetings with some of your staff. So you remember, you ran on the idea of restoring honesty and integrity to the White House. So why are you letting your critics perhaps attack you and paint you with maybe a guilt by association? Why not just throw open your books and say, look, here is --

THE PRESIDENT: There is a serious investigation going on by federal prosecutors, and that's their job. And they will -- if they believe something was done inappropriately in the White House, they'll come and look, and they're welcome to do so. There's a serious investigation that's going on.

Q But, sir, don't you want to tell the American people look, as I promised, this White House isn't for sale and I'm not for sale?

THE PRESIDENT: It's hard for me to say I didn't have pictures with the guy when I did. But I have also had pictures with thousands and thousands of people. I mean, people -- it's part of the job of the President to shake hands and -- with people and smile. (Laughter.) And I do. And the man contributed to my campaigns, but he contributed, either directly or through his clients, to a lot of people in Washington. And this needs to be cleared up so the people have confidence in the system....


....Q Sir, back on lobbying. Never mind about the photographs, but can you say whether --

THE PRESIDENT: It's easy for a radio guy to say. (Laughter.)

Q Can you say, sir, whether you were lobbied by Jack Abramoff or other lobbyists, and what your policy is about lobbyists meeting with senior staff?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I, frankly, don't even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don't know him. And this investigation will -- needs to look into all aspects of his influence on Capitol Hill, and if there's some in the White House, I'm sure they're going to come and knock on the door. But I -- I can't say I didn't ever meet him, but I meet a lot of people. And evidently, he was just like you were the other day, at a holiday party -- came in, put -- the grip-and-grin, they click the picture and off he goes. And that's just -- I take thousands of -- I mean, somebody told me I maybe take over 9,000 pictures this holiday season. And he obviously went to fundraisers, but I've never sat down with him and had a discussion with the guy.

Q Do you meet with lobbyists?

THE PRESIDENT: I try not to. Have I ever met with one? Never having met with one is a -- if I ever say that, sure enough, you'll go find somebody. But, no, I don't have them come in. .....

Last edited by host; 06-09-2008 at 10:35 AM..
host is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 10:25 AM   #138 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
The potential is still here for an "express" double impeachment, reinstatement of Libby's prison sentence, since a co-conspirator in a criminal cover up, cannot validly issue a sentence commutation for a sentence associated with the same criminal matter..... but, only a potential for it to happen....at least for now:

Really if Bush is impeached that will nullify Libby's commutation? Can he be impeached after leaving office?
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 10:45 AM   #139 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Really if Bush is impeached that will nullify Libby's commutation? Can he be impeached after leaving office?
Tully, here is what McClellan wrote about the commutation...it's too hard to transfer links in articles since they shut off html coding here at TFP, but there are plenty of linked pages about this, in this piece:
Quote:
http://sentencing.typepad.com/senten...e-from-mc.html
May 29, 2008
Passage from McClellan's book on the Libby commutation

Mclellan Thanks to this post at TalkLeft I saw this post from Christopher Bateman at Vanity Fair titled "McClellan Disappointed (and McCain Still Mum) About Libby Commutation." Here are highlights:

Scott McClellan’s bombshell book... [includes] a forceful denunciation of President Bush’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s sentence after his conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice in the Valerie Plame affair:

It’s … clear to me that Scooter Libby was guilty of the perjury and obstruction crimes for which he was convicted. When the president commuted Libby’s prison sentence and thereby protected him from serving even one day behind bars, I was disappointed. This kind of special treatment undermines our system of justice…. President Bush certainly has the right and the power to commute Libby’s sentence. But in choosing to do so, he sent an unfortunate message to America and the world — that in the United States criminal behavior on behalf of a political cause may go unpunished if those who support that cause have the power to make it happen.

The Vanity Fair post goes on to not that John McCain was spoke out on behalf of Libby in 2007 but that "McCain has declined to speak about the commutation, and his campaign has not returned VF Daily’s request to comment on McClellan’s statements." Needless to say, I think (along surely with folks at Pardon Power) that the Libby commutation should be a campaign issue in the weeks and months ahead.

Some related posts:

*
Bush's reasons for Libby's commutation ... will others now see similar compassion from Bush and his Justice Department?
* Latest FSR issue on "Learning from Libby"
* The inside backstory on the Libby commutation
*
Reflections on "Bush the merciful"
* Few giving the President sentencing thanks
* Pardon politics and the 2008 campaign

The commutation of Libby's sentence, for it to be valid, has to be "pure"...unrelated to any other motive on the part of the president....I think the best we can hope for is to make it untenable for Bush to issue a pardon to Libby for his four count conviction, on Bush's last day in office:
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/08/...libby-hearing/
Jul 8th, 2007

Conyers: Bush Should Waive Exec. Privilege, ‘Do What Clinton Did’ And Explain Commutation»

This Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers will hold a hearing on the use and misuse of presidential clemency power, looking specifically at whether President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence was an abuse of power.

Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Conyers said there exists a “suspicion that if Mr. Libby went to prison, he might further implicate other people in the White House.” Conyers noted “there was some kind of relationship here that does not exist in any of President Clinton’s pardons… [and] it’s never existed before.”

Conyers said he is requesting Bush waive executive privilege and “do what President Clinton did — namely to bring forward any of his pardon lawyers or anyone that can put a clear light on this and put this kind of feeling that is fairly general to rest.” Watch it:

Transcript:

CONYERS: But what we have here — and I think we should put it on the table right at the beginning — is that the suspicion was that if Mr. Libby went to prison, he might further implicate other people in the White House, and that there was some kind of relationship here that does not exist in any of President Clinton’s pardons, nor, according to those that we’ve talked to — and this is why we’re doing the hearings — is that it’s never existed before, ever.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So it’s really…

CONYERS: We’ve never had…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me stop you there, because you seem to be suggesting that President Bush commuted Mr. Libby’s sentence in order to keep him quiet.

CONYERS: Well, that’s — I said that’s what the general impression is. And what we’re trying to do — and this is why we’ve written the president, inviting him to do what President Clinton did, and namely to bring forward any of his pardon lawyers or anyone that can put a clear light on this and put this kind of feeling that is fairly general to rest. That’s the whole purpose.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re asking him to waive executive privilege.

CONYERS: Yes. And that’s what Clinton did. Yes, we’re asking him to waive executive privilege and allow his pardon lawyers or other experts, who it appears that he did not consult, explain this in a little more detail.

So, what we’re saying, Mr. Stephanopoulos, is that there wasn’t any pardons that have involved a person who was a former chief of staff to the vice president of the United States that got a commutation. Commutations usually follow after a person has served some period of time. And of course, this isn’t the case here.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve asked the president — you’re asking the president to waive executive privilege in this case on the pardons. You’ve also asked him to waive executive privilege as you investigate the firing of those U.S. attorneys. And you’ve given the president a 10 a.m. deadline tomorrow to come forward with those documents.

But The Washington Post reports this morning that the White House is going to deny that request. They say that they’re not going to turn over the documents you’ve requested or the detailed justification for the executive privilege claims. So what’s your response going to be?

CONYERS: Well, I’m glad The Post finds out about what the president plans to do before anybody just gives us a call. We’re going to pursue our legal remedies to press forward with the subpoenas. I don’t think, if this is correct, we don’t have any other choice.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So that means holding the White House in contempt of Congress?

CONYERS: Well, yes. It means moving forward in the process that would require him to comply with the subpoenas like most other people.

Last edited by host; 06-09-2008 at 10:54 AM..
host is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 10:50 AM   #140 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I'm way too young to remember this, but student activism was rather massive during the Nixon Administration. Between Vietnam and Watergate, people were actually pissed. Why do you think the legislative branch actually had the balls to impeach him?
The special prosecutor had the support of the Supreme Court, and the Judicial Committee had the support of enough Republicans to approve the articles of impeachment. Most important they had a case. I don't know what the "case" is for impeaching Bush. Even if you think he "lied", which the latest Senate Intel Committee investigation did not conclude, he did not do it under oath. Bush is not in contempt of Congress, he has not obstructed justice, so what are his crimes?

Quote:
Half the nation? More like 25%, if that. It's not 2004, you know.
Approval ratings are different than what people will perceive as partisan. Approval ratings also change based on events. Right now Democrats have Bush were they want him, if they make him out to be a victim or whatever, the mood of the nation could change fast. I think the rhetoric being used is better than Democrats actually doing something from a political point of view.

Quote:
What will be gained? How about a year of freedom for innocent men, women and children? How about unconstitutional wiretaps? How about a year's worth of Iraq War money? How about Kyoto? How about letting Adam and Steve get hitched? I could write books on the things Bush not only has done wrong, but continues to do wrong in office, to the detriment of the American people (you included).
I am betting things won't change much under the next Democratic Party administration. Just my opinion. People can always find some "wrong" with any administration and write books about it. Heck, people can already write books about Obama's "wrongs" and he hasn't taken the oath of office yet. Hannity on Fox has already made a cottage industry on Obama's "wrongs", just wait until he J-walks - impeachment talk will follow shortly thereafter.

I just think it is time for both sides to give it a rest.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 10:59 AM   #141 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The special prosecutor had the support of the Supreme Court, and the Judicial Committee had the support of enough Republicans to approve the articles of impeachment. Most important they had a case. I don't know what the "case" is for impeaching Bush. Even if you think he "lied", which the latest Senate Intel Committee investigation did not conclude, he did not do it under oath. Bush is not in contempt of Congress, he has not obstructed justice, so what are his crimes?



Approval ratings are different than what people will perceive as partisan. Approval ratings also change based on events. Right now Democrats have Bush were they want him, if they make him out to be a victim or whatever, the mood of the nation could change fast. I think the rhetoric being used is better than Democrats actually doing something from a political point of view.



I am betting things won't change much under the next Democratic Party administration. Just my opinion. People can always find some "wrong" with any administration and write books about it. Heck, people can already write books about Obama's "wrongs" and he hasn't taken the oath of office yet. Hannity on Fox has already made a cottage industry on Obama's "wrongs", just wait until he J-walks - impeachment talk will follow shortly thereafter.

I just think it is time for both sides to give it a rest.
Yeah, Ford once stated impeachable offenses are "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

That was in 1970, years before being a member of the E. branch.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:07 AM   #142 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
to my mind, there are several problems that i think the top members of the bush administration should be held accountable for--of them, i find the false case for war with iraq almost as outrageous as this sort of thing:

Quote:
Guantánamo Bay: Interrogators told to destroy torture notes, US lawyer claims

* Peter Walker and agencies

* Monday June 9 2008

U.S. military guards walk within Camp Delta military-run prison, at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba

The US high security prison at Campa Delta, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Photograph: AP

Interrogators at Guantánamo Bay were told to destroy their notes to stop them potentially being used to highlight the mistreatment of detainees, according to a US military lawyer.

William Kuebler, a lieutenant commander who is defending Omar Khadr, a Canadian national facing trial for alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, said the classified instructions were included in an operations manual that prosecutors allowed him to see last week.

The apparently wilful and officially sanctioned destruction of notes meant he would be unable to challenge supposed confessions given by Khadr, Kuebler said yesterday.

He told reporters the instruction was contained in a US military manual of standard operating procedures, or SOPs, for interrogators that was shown to him during a pre-trial review of possible evidence.

"The mission has legal and political issues that may lead to interrogators being called to testify … Keeping the number of documents with interrogation information to a minimum can minimise certain legal issues," the document was cited as saying in an affidavit signed by Kuebler.

The navy lawyer now plans to seek a dismissal of charges against 21-year-old Khadr, who was detained in Afghanistan at the age of 15.

Khadr, who faces a series of charges, including murder for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a US special forces soldier in 2002, is set to be one of the first Guantánamo detainees to face a war crimes trial.

Kuebler said the way the interrogations were carried out was central to Khadr's case because prosecutors were relying largely on testimony obtained from him at Guantánamo, and earlier at Bagram air base, in Afghanistan.

"If handwritten notes were destroyed in accordance with the SOP, the government intentionally deprived Omar's lawyers of key evidence with which to challenge the reliability of his statements," Kuebler said.

Prisoners released from both Guantánamo and Bagram have alleged routine mistreatment during interrogation. The Pentagon denies this.

Kuebler said the operations manual, from January 2003, was attached to a 2005 report into alleged detainee abuse at Guantánamo, but that the section covering the manual was not made public at the time.

The 2005 report documented degrading treatment, but stopped short of saying torture occurred.

At the weekend, the Pentagon said the process of trying Guantánamo prisoners for alleged war crimes was a "number one priority". It said it was doubling the total of military lawyers assigned to prosecution and defence teams. About 270 detainees remain at the former naval base, of which the US military hopes to prosecute up to 80.

Critics of the hearings say the US is seeking to rush through trials before the presidential election in November. However, claims that potential evidence was destroyed could be used by lawyers defending other detainees to challenge their alleged confessions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...mo.humanrights

and this:


Quote:
US accused of holding terror suspects on prison ships

* Duncan Campbell and Richard Norton-Taylor

* Monday June 2 2008


An amphibious assault vehicle leaves the USS Peleliu, which was used to detain prisoners, according to the human rights group Reprieve

An amphibious assault vehicle leaves the USS Peleliu, which was used to detain prisoners, according to the human rights group Reprieve. Photograph: Zack Baddor/AP

The United States is operating "floating prisons" to house those arrested in its war on terror, according to human rights lawyers, who claim there has been an attempt to conceal the numbers and whereabouts of detainees.

Details of ships where detainees have been held and sites allegedly being used in countries across the world have been compiled as the debate over detention without trial intensifies on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government was yesterday urged to list the names and whereabouts of all those detained.

Information about the operation of prison ships has emerged through a number of sources, including statements from the US military, the Council of Europe and related parliamentary bodies, and the testimonies of prisoners.

The analysis, due to be published this year by the human rights organisation Reprieve, also claims there have been more than 200 new cases of rendition since 2006, when President George Bush declared that the practice had stopped.

It is the use of ships to detain prisoners, however, that is raising fresh concern and demands for inquiries in Britain and the US.

According to research carried out by Reprieve, the US may have used as many as 17 ships as "floating prisons" since 2001. Detainees are interrogated aboard the vessels and then rendered to other, often undisclosed, locations, it is claimed.

Ships that are understood to have held prisoners include the USS Bataan and USS Peleliu. A further 15 ships are suspected of having operated around the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which has been used as a military base by the UK and the Americans.

Reprieve will raise particular concerns over the activities of the USS Ashland and the time it spent off Somalia in early 2007 conducting maritime security operations in an effort to capture al-Qaida terrorists.

At this time many people were abducted by Somali, Kenyan and Ethiopian forces in a systematic operation involving regular interrogations by individuals believed to be members of the FBI and CIA. Ultimately more than 100 individuals were "disappeared" to prisons in locations including Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Guantánamo Bay.

Reprieve believes prisoners may have also been held for interrogation on the USS Ashland and other ships in the Gulf of Aden during this time.

The Reprieve study includes the account of a prisoner released from Guantánamo Bay, who described a fellow inmate's story of detention on an amphibious assault ship. "One of my fellow prisoners in Guantánamo was at sea on an American ship with about 50 others before coming to Guantánamo ... he was in the cage next to me. He told me that there were about 50 other people on the ship. They were all closed off in the bottom of the ship. The prisoner commented to me that it was like something you see on TV. The people held on the ship were beaten even more severely than in Guantánamo."

Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve's legal director, said: "They choose ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers. We will eventually reunite these ghost prisoners with their legal rights.

"By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001. The US government must show a commitment to rights and basic humanity by immediately revealing who these people are, where they are, and what has been done to them."

Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition, called for the US and UK governments to come clean over the holding of detainees.

"Little by little, the truth is coming out on extraordinary rendition. The rest will come, in time. Better for governments to be candid now, rather than later. Greater transparency will provide increased confidence that President Bush's departure from justice and the rule of law in the aftermath of September 11 is being reversed, and can help to win back the confidence of moderate Muslim communities, whose support is crucial in tackling dangerous extremism."

The Liberal Democrat's foreign affairs spokesman, Edward Davey, said: "If the Bush administration is using British territories to aid and abet illegal state abduction, it would amount to a huge breach of trust with the British government. Ministers must make absolutely clear that they would not support such illegal activity, either directly or indirectly."

A US navy spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, told the Guardian: "There are no detention facilities on US navy ships." However, he added that it was a matter of public record that some individuals had been put on ships "for a few days" during what he called the initial days of detention. He declined to comment on reports that US naval vessels stationed in or near Diego Garcia had been used as "prison ships".

The Foreign Office referred to David Miliband's statement last February admitting to MPs that, despite previous assurances to the contrary, US rendition flights had twice landed on Diego Garcia. He said he had asked his officials to compile a list of all flights on which rendition had been alleged.

CIA "black sites" are also believed to have operated in Thailand, Afghanistan, Poland and Romania.

In addition, numerous prisoners have been "extraordinarily rendered" to US allies and are alleged to have been tortured in secret prisons in countries such as Syria, Jordan, Morocco and Egypt.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...sa.humanrights

i see this kind of thing as far more serious than the outling of valerie plame or the confirmation of the obvious by scott mclelland.

and i don't see the argument that ace is making above--which amounts to "pshaw..everyone does this" as extending anywhere near these situations.
or the more immediate ones in this thread.

basically, the americans are either a country bound by law or they aren't. if they aren't, then why should anyone else be?

and if the united states administration can authorize the systematic violation of international agreements concerning treatment of detainees, bans on torture--you know, basic human rights---and there are no consequences, what does that say to the rest of the world? either the americans under george w bush define themselves as a menace, or the americans under george w bush erase 75 years of international treaties/law regarding basic human rights.

personally, i would prefer to see elements of the bush administration suffer legal consequences for these actions. guarantees of basic human rights are more important that the imperlial delusions of the neo-cons.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:14 AM   #143 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The special prosecutor had the support of the Supreme Court, and the Judicial Committee had the support of enough Republicans to approve the articles of impeachment. Most important they had a case. I don't know what the "case" is for impeaching Bush. Even if you think he "lied", which the latest Senate Intel Committee investigation did not conclude, he did not do it under oath. Bush is not in contempt of Congress, he has not obstructed justice, so what are his crimes?
I'll just list the bigger ones, for the sake of time:
1) Bush bypassed informed consent knowingly by presenting at best partisan and biased information and withholding information when presenting the case for the invasion of Iraq to Congress. (this also includes breaking the UN charter, which is a legal US treaty).
2) Bush threatened and was responsible for an attack on a sovereign nation, including civilian targets.
3) Bush ordered illegal kidnappings.
4) Bush ordered that Valery Plame's name be released.
5) Bush ordered the Attorney General to bypass judicial orders which should have lead to the release of detainees.
6) Bush ordered secret wiretapping and information gathering on US citizens, bypassing FISA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Approval ratings are different than what people will perceive as partisan. Approval ratings also change based on events. Right now Democrats have Bush were they want him, if they make him out to be a victim or whatever, the mood of the nation could change fast. I think the rhetoric being used is better than Democrats actually doing something from a political point of view.
Democrats are weak, and not impeaching Bush reinforces that view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I am betting things won't change much under the next Democratic Party administration. Just my opinion. People can always find some "wrong" with any administration and write books about it. Heck, people can already write books about Obama's "wrongs" and he hasn't taken the oath of office yet. Hannity on Fox has already made a cottage industry on Obama's "wrongs", just wait until he J-walks - impeachment talk will follow shortly thereafter.

I just think it is time for both sides to give it a rest.
As soon as Bush gives breaking the law and behaving unethically a rest, I'll rest.

As for Obama's wrongs, that's a hell of a red herring.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:18 AM   #144 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
With an Obama win and Democratic increases in both the House and Senate, Obama can quite easily make a case for having a "mandate for change" and frame that mandate on two tracks.

The primary track would be a different policy approach to the occupation in Iraq, the economy, health care, energy, etc.

The secondary track would be a commitment to a more open and accountable executive branch, including a strong case to continue to support Congressional oversight of the "excesses" of the previous administration in selected areas (executive privilege, US responsibilities under international treaties, destroying WH e-mails, politicization of the DoJ, interference with government science reports, etc) in order to determine if the "checks and balances" have been ignored and/or abused and the best corrective actions to put the ship of state back on course.

The only way it wont work is if he lets the Republicans frame the issue that we need to focus solely on the future and forget the excesses of the past 8 years and anything else is a partisan "fishing expedition."

The issue of impeachment is DOA....the issue of criminal prosecution of members of the Bush admin post Jan 09 is an open question.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-09-2008 at 11:23 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:23 AM   #145 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The special prosecutor had the support of the Supreme Court, and the Judicial Committee had the support of enough Republicans to approve the articles of impeachment. Most important they had a case. I don't know what the "case" is for impeaching Bush. Even if you think he "lied", which the latest Senate Intel Committee investigation did not conclude, he did not do it under oath. Bush is not in contempt of Congress, he has not obstructed justice, so what are his crimes?


Approval ratings are different than what people will perceive as partisan. Approval ratings also change based on events. Right now Democrats have Bush were they want him, if they make him out to be a victim or whatever, the mood of the nation could change fast. I think the rhetoric being used is better than Democrats actually doing something from a political point of view.



I am betting things won't change much under the next Democratic Party administration. Just my opinion. People can always find some "wrong" with any administration and write books about it. Heck, people can already write books about Obama's "wrongs" and he hasn't taken the oath of office yet. Hannity on Fox has already made a cottage industry on Obama's "wrongs", just wait until he J-walks - impeachment talk will follow shortly thereafter.

I just think it is time for both sides to give it a rest.
ace....a couple of questions.... you say you think independently, arriving at independent conclusions....so why do you sound so similar to these two guys, Broder and (George F.) Will?

....and do you wear boxers or briefs? I cannot imagine stuffing a "set" as big as the one a person who wrote your last post, yet who subscribed to "the thinking" below, must be endowed with...into a pair of briefs!


Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
Transcript
Broder on Politics

Who's Blogging» Links to this discussion
David S. Broder
Washington Post Columnist
Friday, June 6, 2008; 12:00 PM

Crestwood, N.Y.: So the Senate report -- supported by two Republicans -- supports the conclusion that we all reached several years ago, that Bush and Cheney used propaganda and ginned up intelligence to trick the country into war. If this is not an impeachable offense, what do you define as one? And if an impeachable offense is committed, isn't it the height of irresponsibility for the Democrats to put possible harm to their electoral chances (negligible, in my opinion) ahead of their oaths to the Constitution? How will history look back at this disgraceful chapter in both the executive and legislative branches?

washingtonpost.com: Bush Inflated Threat From Iraq's Banned Weapons, Report Says (Post, June 6)

David S. Broder: You'll have to forgive me, but I am reluctant to see everybig policy dispute turned into a criminal or impeachable affair. There needs to be accountability but there also needs to be proportionality. This country is engaged in two wars and has serious, serious domestic problems. To stop everything and attempt to impeach and remove a president who has less than a year to serve would not strike me as the best use of our energy. And for what? So Dick Cheney can be president?

Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060501523.html

Bush Inflated Threat From Iraq's Banned Weapons, Report Says

By Joby Warrick and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 6, 2008; Page A03

President Bush and top administration officials repeatedly exaggerated what they knew about Iraq's weapons and its ties to terrorist groups as the White House pressed its case for war against Iraq, the Senate intelligence committee said yesterday in a long-awaited report.

While most of the administration's prewar claims about Iraq reflected now-discredited U.S. intelligence reports, the White House crossed a line by conveying certainty about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States, according to the report, approved over the objections of most of the committee's Republican members.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the committee chairman, said at a news conference. "As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed." .....


Quote:
http://www.lexrex.com/articles/impeachment.html

Grounds for Impeachment
By George F. Will


Sunday, August 23, 1998; Page C07


...In January Clinton coldly lied to his assembled Cabinet, knowing they would go forth and amplify the lie. Yet now that they know they were ill-used, not one Cabinet member feels sufficiently strongly about it to resign. Such evidence of the condition of the political culture should stimulate interest in impeachment as an instrument for the purification of that culture.

Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090800602.html

David S. Broder
Washington Post Columnist
Friday, September 15, 2006; 11:00 AM

Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and Washington Post columnist David S. Broder was online Friday, Sept. 15, at 11 a.m. ET to answer your questions about the world of politics, from the latest maneuverings on Capitol Hill to developments in the White House.


....Washington, D.C.: Mr Broder, if you feel Karl Rove is owed an apology from the pundits and writers over Valerie Plame, did you also call for an apology to the Clintons after Ken Starr, the Whitewater investigation and the failed attempt to impeach President Clinton? If not, why not?

David S. Broder: As best, I can recall, I did not call for such an apology. My view, for whatever it is worth long after the dust has settled on Monica, was that when President Clinton admitted he had lied to his Cabinet and his closest assoc, to say nothing of the public, that the honorable thing was for him to have resigned and turned over the office to Vice President Gore. I think history would have been very different had he done that. . . .

What bothered me greatly about his actions was not what he said to his lawyers but what he told the Cabinet, his White House staff -- You can go out and defend me because this did not happen. And he told the same lie to the American people. When a president loses his credibility, he loses an important tool for governing -- and that is why I thought he should step down.
....
Impeachment is intended to deal with abuses that relate "chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." Says who? Alexander Hamilton, which is telling.

Hamilton believed that "energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government." So it is significant that when the three authors of the Federalist Papers got around to explicating the Constitution's impeachment provisions, James Madison and John Jay ceded to Hamilton, a supporter of a strong presidency, the delicate task of interpreting impeachment as a weapon for disciplining executives who use their energy in inappropriate ways.

Impeachment, Hamilton argued in Federalist 65, concerns "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust." In Federalist 77 he asked, does the Constitution provide "safety, in the republican sense -- a due dependence on the people"? He said it does because, among other reasons, a president is "at all times liable to impeachment."

But for what? A familiar flippancy, that grounds for impeachment are whatever the House of Representatives says, is akin to the notion that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. That only means there is no appeal from the Court, not that the Court cannot construe the Constitution incorrectly.

Twenty-four years ago a study written (with the participation of Hillary Rodham) for the House committee considering impeachment of Richard Nixon said: "From the comments of the Framers and their contemporaries, the remarks of delegates to the state ratifying conventions, and the removal power debate in the First Congress, it is apparent that the scope of impeachment was not viewed narrowly."

It argued that the pedigree of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" pertains not to criminal law, not just to "crimes of a strictly legal character." Rather it has "a more enlarged operation." Its proper objects include offenses "growing out of personal misconduct" and a "wide range of . . . noncriminal offenses." Thus the articles of impeachment indicted Nixon for, among many other things, "making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States" about his misdeeds.

Public lies, and personal behavior destructive of trust, are, Ann Coulter argues, central, not peripheral, grounds for impeachment in a system such as ours. In her book on Clinton's debacle, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," she says that in British history impeachment had been a means of resolving otherwise intractable disputes over policies. But under our Constitution, such power struggles can be resolved through separation of powers mechanisms such as vetoes and judicial review. So, Coulter says, "elections decide policy; impeachments judge character."

Anesthetics and forceps may be needed to extract articles of impeachment from a Congress that reads its duties in poll results rather than in the Constitution. Nevertheless, Clinton's conduct, as already known, is an impeachable offense.
ace, I've seen you post quotes from Hamilton, before....how has he got it wrong, in this case? Why do Will, Broder, and Coulter, though they thought that a president who "publicly lied", about comparatively trivial, private personal matters, shoud be impeached or resign....and why do you, for that matter, object to the same ground rules when the misleading statements are as serious as the justifications for invasion and occupation, or the outing of a CIA operative for political payback purposes?

Last edited by host; 06-09-2008 at 11:45 AM..
host is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:31 AM   #146 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
host...i agree that there may be grounds for impeachment, particularly on the issues of warrantless wiretaps, the unlawful release of national security information (Plame affair) and the abrogation of US treaty obligations (torture of non-combatants)...but not on the decisions or actions that brought about the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

From a practical perspective...it just aint gonna happen.

One only need look at the manner in which the WH has effectively stalled the Contempt of Congress citations on WH staff. That issue will not work its way through the federal courts until after the Bush admin is out. An impeacment inquiry would suffer the same fate...at the first request for WH testimony or documents, Bush would call out his lawyers and stall with legal maneuvers for 9 months.

I just dont see how the public is served. I would much rather see a focus on corrective actions as a priority rather than delayed punitive actions through the impeachment process. That sill leaves the door open to criminal prosecution after Jan 09.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-09-2008 at 11:35 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:36 AM   #147 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
ace....a couple of questions.... you say you think independently, arriving at independent conclusions....so why do you sound so similar to these two guys, Broder and Will?
... a different Will.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:42 AM   #148 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
host...i agree that there may be grounds for impeachment, particularly on the issues of warrantless wiretaps, the unlawful release of national security information (Plame affair) and the abrogation of US treaty obligations (torture of non-combatants)...but not on the decisions or actions that brought about the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

From a practical perspective...it just aint gonna happen.

One only need look at the manner in which the WH has effectively stalled the Contempt of Congress citations on WH staff. That issue will not work its way through the federal courts until after the Bush admin is out. An impeacment inquiry would suffer the same fate...at the first request for WH testimony or documents, Bush would call out his lawyers and stall with legal maneuvers for 9 months.

I just dont see how the public is served. I would much rather see a focus on corrective actions as a priority rather than delayed punitive actions through the impeachment process. That sill leaves the door open to criminal prosecution after Jan 09.
That isn't the point. The point is that republicans and their pundits marched in lockstep over the issue of Clinton misleading "the American people", about his role in a trivial, private sexual tryst. They not only maintained that it rose to a level serious enough for impeachment....and neither Will, nor Broder, nor Coulter, as my citations show....limited arguments for impeachment or resigntaion in disgrace, to lying under oath in a civil deposition proceeding. they actually pursued impeachment because of it.

No, they all maintained that "public lies"....the president losing his credibility, were enough. But, now, in the circumstances of the list of serious accusations of a loss of presidential credibility, closely related to, and during a time of war....where are these same people with their concerns?

ace summed it up in his last post, it has to be a demonstrable felony now, for impeachment to be considered, and Broder's response last friday is a poster for ace's argument....
host is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:47 AM   #149 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
host..I agree with you here as well.

The most baffling aspect of the discussion from our members on the right here and in the right wing media is how any true conservative can simply ignore the alleged and potential wrongdoings as a result of the the numerous questionable policies and practices of the Bush admin over the last 8 years.

Many of those actions probably do not reach the level of impeachable offenses, but certainly they are worthy of further congressional and judicial review to determine any potential criminality as well as the adverse impact on the system of checks and balances.

To simply say.."its time to move on" is a slap in the face of the Constitution.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-09-2008 at 11:55 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:54 AM   #150 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
host..I agree with you here as well.

The most baffling aspect of the discussion here and in the right wing media is how any true conservative can simply ignore the alleged and potential wrongdoings as a result of the the numerous questionable policies and practices of the Bush admin over the last 8 years.

Many of those actions probably do not reach the level of impeachable offense, but certainly they are worthy of further congressional and judicial review to determine any potential criminality as well as the adverse impact on the system of checks and balances.

To simply say.."its time to move on" is a slap in the face of the Constitution.
Quoting George F. Will, displayed in my last post:
Quote:
http://www.lexrex.com/articles/impeachment.html
Sunday, August 23, 1998; Page C07


...In January Clinton coldly lied to his assembled Cabinet, knowing they would go forth and amplify the lie. Yet now that they know they were ill-used, not one Cabinet member feels sufficiently strongly about it to resign. Such evidence of the condition of the political culture should stimulate interest in impeachment as an instrument for the purification of that culture.
I can' think of more closely matching circumstance, dc_dux, to what you describe in your question about today's conservatives, and what George F. Will observed about the reaction of Clinton's cabinet....and what to do about it.....then, and now!
host is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:56 AM   #151 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
....and what to do about it.....then, and now!
The Democrats (Obama and a larger Dem majority in Congress) must find the right balance between "moving on" and reviewing the past 8 years (and recommending corrective action where appropriate) so those abuses of executive power and benign neglect of the checks and balances are not repeated.

It wont be an easy balancing act as is evident from the discussion here.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-09-2008 at 11:58 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 12:03 PM   #152 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The Democrats (Obama and a larger Dem majority in Congress) must find the right balance between "moving on" and reviewing the past 8 years (and recommending corrective action where appropriate) so it is not repeated.

It wont be an easy balancing act as is evident from the discussion here.
As Glenn Greenwald so tirelessly reminds us, David Broder and George F. Will are two highly regarded, senior members of the beltway pundit class. We know that a closer to the truth description is that they are two highly partisan columinists who simply "make shit up". They have no consistency or strong principle in their opinions...but they influence the direction of events....they argued for impeachment, ten years ago, and there was impeachment, on much less actually important justification and implication than there are today. Today, they help keep a lid on "impeachment talk"....relegating it to the fringe.

It is they who are on the fringe, in a reality based political universe, but they have the microphone, as they did in 1998.
host is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 12:06 PM   #153 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
As Glenn Greenwald so tirelessly reminds us, David Broder and George F. Will are two highly regarded, senior members of the beltway pundit class. We know that a closer to the truth description is that they are two highly partisan columinists who simply "make shit up". They have no consistency or strong principle in their opinions...but they influence the direction of events....they argued for impeachment, ten years ago, and there was impeachment, on much less actually important justification and implication than there are today. Today, they help keep a lid on "impeachment talk"....relegating it to the fringe.

It is they who are on the fringe, in a reality based political universe, but they have the microphone, as they did in 1998.
actually i have host to remind me...

personally why dc may find it to be a slap in the face of the Constitution, I don't find it as such. Sure if you'd like to fish about, by all means, but I'm not interested in spinning wheels to appease the Constitution. If it was not supposed to happen, then one of the other branches should have stopped it.

I'd like more energy and time devoted to getting the economy back on track, settling the gas crisis, the mortgage crisis, and the rest.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 12:08 PM   #154 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
It is they who are on the fringe, in a reality based political universe, but they have the microphone, as they did in 1998.
The best way to take that microphone back, IMO, is through a deliberative process that can be justified to the American people as in the interest of the Constitution and not partisanship.

I dont believe a fast-track impeachment inquiry in an election year would be perceived by the public as fitting that criteria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
personally why dc may find it to be a slap in the face of the Constitution, I don't find it as such. Sure if you'd like to fish about, by all means, but I'm not interested in spinning wheels to appease the Constitution. If it was not supposed to happen, then one of the other branches should have stopped it.

I'd like more energy and time devoted to getting the economy back on track, settling the gas crisis, the mortgage crisis, and the rest.
I agree that the Republican Congress that was in the majority for six years should have done more to examine the practices of the executive branch in order to "appease the Constitution" (I would prefer to characterize it as respecting the system of checks and balances/separation of powers). They clearly abrogated that responsibility. And in the last 1-1/2 years, the WH has effectively stalled every attempt at such oversight by the 110th Congress.

There is no reason why Obama and a Dem Congress cant muti-task and do both....per my post #144.

I think if it were framed and presented to the American people correctly, it would receive widespread support.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-09-2008 at 12:47 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 02:47 PM   #155 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
ace....a couple of questions.... you say you think independently, arriving at independent conclusions....so why do you sound so similar to these two guys, Broder and (George F.) Will?
Great minds think alike?!?

Quote:
....and do you wear boxers or briefs? I cannot imagine stuffing a "set" as big as the one a person who wrote your last post, yet who subscribed to "the thinking" below, must be endowed with...into a pair of briefs!


ace, I've seen you post quotes from Hamilton, before....how has he got it wrong, in this case? Why do Will, Broder, and Coulter, though they thought that a president who "publicly lied", about comparatively trivial, private personal matters, shoud be impeached or resign....and why do you, for that matter, object to the same ground rules when the misleading statements are as serious as the justifications for invasion and occupation, or the outing of a CIA operative for political payback purposes?
I did not support the Clinton impeachment. In fact after that embarrassing episode in our history I change my party affiliation from Republican to Libertarian prior to Bush and then I changed back again. The nation was not served by impeaching Clinton. Heck, the nation was not served by the Andrew Johnson impeachment either.

I know there is a lot of emotion and some feel the need to get even for whatever wrong they think Bush is guilty of - I just think it will be a waste of time and energy - nothing more, nothing less. Those who want to punish Bush or send a message with further investigations, hearings, impeachment, trials, etc., will be in a position of power soon and can make it all happen. We will actually be able to see if any good comes from it.

So far Bush has pretty much done everything he wanted to do, and has not had to answer to anyone. In my mind Congress failed if we conclude Bush is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Every step of the way Democrats have been saying he was dishonest and a lier, from the moment he "stole" the election. If they believed what they said, they should have done more at the time it was happening.

My mind is made up and won't be changed, I am focused on the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
and i don't see the argument that ace is making above--which amounts to "pshaw..everyone does this" as extending anywhere near these situations.
No. My point is impeachment, further investigations, hearings, etc. will not reveal a greater truth for anyone. Those who believe Bush is a criminal and is guilty already know it and those who don't think he is won't be moved by more data. It is a waste of time at this point. How many more ways can they investigate the lead up to war?

Or is it just a matter of giving "everyone" a turn to publicly say how outraged they are and how vial Bush is? If that is the game, and Obama wants to continue it, it seem contrary to his desire to change Washington. But, if you recall even Bush was going to "change" Washington. Washington is not going to change. So, Bush will go through the Democratic Party ringer, and Obama will get his turn with the Republicans. You can say you heard it hear first.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 06-09-2008 at 02:59 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 03:00 PM   #156 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The best way to take that microphone back, IMO, is through a deliberative process that can be justified to the American people as in the interest of the Constitution and not partisanship.

I dont believe a fast-track impeachment inquiry in an election year would be perceived by the public as fitting that criteria.


I agree that the Republican Congress that was in the majority for six years should have done more to examine the practices of the executive branch in order to "appease the Constitution" (I would prefer to characterize it as respecting the system of checks and balances/separation of powers). They clearly abrogated that responsibility. And in the last 1-1/2 years, the WH has effectively stalled every attempt at such oversight by the 110th Congress.

There is no reason why Obama and a Dem Congress cant muti-task and do both....per my post #144.

I think if it were framed and presented to the American people correctly, it would receive widespread support.
Agreed. The checks and balances are supposed to be in my opinion to check and balance DURING not post. There is sometimes where there is some after the fact, but at least be done during the term of the administration.

Now part of that is done after the fact via the Judicial branch, in finding law unconstitutional, but I don't see "finding lies" from the executive branch a worthwhile endeavor just so that it can be ruled that Bush was a moron, liar, etc. I think that is making the Judicial branch more "politicized" in doing so.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 03:11 PM   #157 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Agreed. The checks and balances are supposed to be in my opinion to check and balance DURING not post. There is sometimes where there is some after the fact, but at least be done during the term of the administration.
How can Congress complete the job during his administration if the (or any future) president cites some nebulous expansion of executive privileges and blocks every attempt to require WH (and other) staff to testify under oath? We're now in a holding patter while several Contempt of Congress charges await judicial action..that probably wont be resolve until after the election. What should Congress do if the federal judiciary rules in its favor?....abandon the hearings or proceed as necessary to take corrective action by proposing new legislation?

Quote:
Now part of that is done after the fact via the Judicial branch, in finding law unconstitutional, but I don't see "finding lies" from the executive branch a worthwhile endeavor just so that it can be ruled that Bush was a moron, liar, etc. I think that is making the Judicial branch more "politicized" in doing so.
Congressional oversight is not concerned solely with "finding lies" but with finding areas in which the Executive branch may (or may not) have acted lawfully, but violated administrative procedures outside the intent of Congress and in which new laws may be needed OR where the issue of law is unsettled (ie , warrantless wiretaps, torture).

We have seen several actions by Congress as a result of these oversight hearings:
* FISA reform to prevent any future wiretapping of Americans w/o a warrant. (proposed)
* New laws regarding torture and treatment of non-combatants (proposed/failed)
* FOIA reform legislation as a result of WH directive that denied most FOIA requests(enacted)
* Possible expansion of the Hatch Act as a result of "political acts" that violated administrative rules and procedures (proposed)
* New FBI procedures regarding use of national security letters as a result of WH ignoring intent of Congress by issuing signing statement (pending)
* Greater contracting oversight and control as a result of abuses in Iraq reconstruction contracts(proposed)
* Revisions to Presidential Records Act as a result of WH destruction of e-mails (pending)
I think its fair to say that none of these would likely have occurred if not for the change in leadership of Congress.

Some of these issues (and many others) are still under review pending responses from the WH and the Executive branch to provide documentation of actions by the administration. This is a proper role for Congress. Should they stop now, w/o those necessary WH docs? The Democratic Congress is making up for six years of the Republicans virtually abrogating this responsibility. I think they deserve more than 1-1/2 years to complete the job if necessary, particularly given the lack of cooperation by the WH and their Republican colleagues during that 1-1/2 years.

IMO, Congress's role as overseer of the Executive Branch (while not clearly delineated in the Constitution) is equally important as the role of enacting legislation and adopting a federal budget.

It is not to punish an administration....it is to make the Executive Branch more open and accountable to the American people.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-09-2008 at 03:56 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 04:12 PM   #158 (permalink)
Banned
 
Cynthetiq and ace give carte blanche to the administration's strategy of simply stonewalling all investigation and attempted oversight with bogus, blanket claims of executive immunity, until they run out the clock.

In this way of responding to official misconduct, if a change in congressional control does not change to the opposition party sooner than before the congressional election immediately preceding the end of a president's tenure, the two year time limit will encourage all future executives to withhold cooperation with attempts at legislative branch oversight, and instead, refuse all cooperation, claim blanket executive immunity, and attempt to run out the clock.

It is all in the interest of "moving on".....moving on....to what? To the next Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq invasion, secret executive order, signing statement, blanket claim of presidential immunity, or deliberate destruction of inter-office white house message files?

Do you think undercover operatives at the CIA have no curiousity, and no effect on their commitment to their jobs, concerning what McClellan wrote about Bush admitting to deliberately declassiying details of Plame's CIA employment, for political purposes?

Why....why do you want to "move forward" with nothing resolved? Should we "move forward", by dropping the long delayed NIST commitment to report on the reason for the collapse of the 47 stories tall, WTC 7 building?

Should Pat Tillman's mom be told to "GFH", in response to her demands that those who covered up the circumstances of here son's death, be held accountable? How about all of the families of US soldiers KIA in Iraq, should they pursue a determination as to the validity of Scott McClellan's "unnecessary war" statement....or do your views.....you with nothing lost, no empty seat at your dinner table..... your wish to "move on"....do you prevail?

dc_dux, isn't the list of "reforms" that you posted, a list of responses unique to the actions of an administration with no regard for the law? They've dreamed up all of these unprecedented acts and procedures that caused congress to respond with your list of remedies. Isn't the obvious solution, in response to a rogue administration that uses signing statements in place of vetoes, and twists FISA, FOIA, etc....etc.... to draw up articles of impeachment, and keep removing scoundrel executives from office until an executive is seated who will act as others have, before this list of reforms was found to be necessary to implement?

Or, could they simply refuse to appropriate funds for the continued operation of the law breaking branch, unless it agrees to conform, and then does?

Last edited by host; 06-09-2008 at 04:33 PM..
host is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 05:59 PM   #159 (permalink)
Upright
 
GonadWarrior's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I'm way too young to remember this, but student activism was rather massive during the Nixon Administration. Between Vietnam and Watergate, people were actually pissed. Why do you think the legislative branch actually had the balls to impeach him?

Half the nation? More like 25%, if that. It's not 2004, you know.

What will be gained? How about a year of freedom for innocent men, women and children? How about unconstitutional wiretaps? How about a year's worth of Iraq War money? How about Kyoto? How about letting Adam and Steve get hitched? I could write books on the things Bush not only has done wrong, but continues to do wrong in office, to the detriment of the American people (you included).
Nixon wasn't impeached. I wouldn't mind if Bush was, though.

"President Cheney" has a nice ring to it.
GonadWarrior is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 06:51 PM   #160 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GonadWarrior
Nixon wasn't impeached. I wouldn't mind if Bush was, though.

"President Cheney" has a nice ring to it.
I said they had the balls to impeach him (or the fortitude to proceed with impeachment, which forced Nixon to resign). I didn't say they impeached him.

Cheney'd get some trim and get impeached faster than Clinton can say "Is".
Willravel is offline  
 

Tags
crimes, house, impeachable, key, offenses, press, secretary, war, white, witness

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:37 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360