Friday, March 23, 2007

"Intriguing" Developments In DC

"I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” – George W. Bush, Nov. 4, 2004

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, you’ve heard about the growing scandal involving the firings of several US Attorneys, allegedly for political reasons (i.e. they didn’t play ball with Bush). I’ll let you read about the public smearing of these attorneys, the “serving at the pleasure of the president,” etc. for yourself.

Prominent names such as Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove and Harriet Miers have been tied to this scandal; Senate and House committees have
authorized subpoenas of Rove, Miers and other Bush staffers – the goal being to get direct answers from these people – but have thus far not issued any.

In an unprecedented (and preemptive) show of generosity, Bush has said he will allow his people to speak with Congress… provided the meeting is done in private (no TV cameras or members of the public allowed), the participants are not required be under oath, and no transcript of the proceedings is kept.


You want the truth? The American people can't handle the truth!!!

Obviously Bush saw the subpoenas coming and made this offer in an attempt to prevent that happening. He seemed quite taken aback when his offer was quickly brushed aside by Democrats and some Republicants who want, oh, what is that word, accountability.

Under fire for offering testimony (he’s calling them “interviews”) under such tight constraints, Bush has gone to great lengths to explain just why he’s demanding these concessions.

He is concerned that, if his aides fear being dragged before Congress they will not provide him with
“candid” advice. To me that says that Bush’s aides can only be honest with him if they’re not made to be honest with Congress(?)

Bush has also characterized potential hearings as “show trials” and “partisan fishing expeditions.” This, even though it is standard procedure to call White House officials before Congress when some wrongdoing has been alleged. And even though some members of his own party agree the proceedings needs to be transparent and verifiable.

Has anyone asked Bush for PROOF that the demand for accountable testimony equals a show trial? That's a pretty defensive posture he’s taking with that unsubstantiated accusation.

Through his spokesman, Tony Snow, Bush has also said that he believes the American people are tired of these political circuses. So, his demands regarding the testimony are for our benefit(!) Thank you for thinking of me, sir. But I have to be honest – what I am tired of is this administration being so secretive and intractable.

Snow has also made it clear Bush sees oaths as
unnecessary because it’s against the law to lie to Congress. Therefore, any testimony Bush aides provided would naturally be completely truthful. So why bother? Oaths schmoaths!

If there’s an assumption that people will tell the truth when being questioned in an official setting, as Snow suggests, all oaths become unnecessary. Court proceedings could be done on the honor system. Come to think of it, we could skip that oath the president takes at his inauguration, too.

Interestingly, while the White House wants to limit access to testimony about conversations between the president and his advisers, it has also insisted that the president never discussed the matter of the US Attorney firings with his advisers. When asked to explain this discrepancy, Snow
stated that the question was “intriguing.” Huh?


I think all rational, reasonable Americans want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on this matter. That necessitates public, on-record, under-oath testimony. It's the only way we can have faith in the process. I have said this before: ALL Congressional hearings should be done this way, regardless of which party is in power, or who is on the chopping block.

How this subpoena battle will go is still up in the air. But one thing seems certain: Democrats have earned capital, political capital, from the 2006 elections, and now they intend to spend it.

25 comments:

Jack K. said...

Sorta makes one wonder what the W has in his cranium. Oh, I know, it's oatmeal.

Now that I have gotten that out of my system, it seems as though W believes he must protect us from ourselves. Well sir, I don't need it and I don't appreciate it and I want you to stop it. If I want to have a case of the dumb-ass that's my prerogative. After all, you have set a good example on how to do that.

Get the fuck out of Iraq. That is the best way to support the troops. They will do what is asked of them even when it seems stupid. I have the greatest admiration for the gals and guys on the ground. It wasn't fun in Viet Nam and sure as hell isn't any fun in Iraq.

I am sure that most Iraqis who have had a chance to interact with most of the troops are glad that they are there. Now is time to bring them home.

As for the Gonzalez debacle, is there a conspiracy to keep our minds off of the WAR.

As the bumber sticker on a vehicle of a Kansas congresssional intern said, "F**k War". I concur.

I hope you were able to get my true feelings on this subject.

Bird said...

but bogs - we WANT gonzales, rove, meirs on that line - we NEED them on that line.

damn right we do.

i want them to tow that line.

roflol................squawk!

the political theater this week has been hysterical.

i can't help but keep playing, over and over, the video clip of boxer taking inhofe to task during gore's testimony.

yes indeedy -elections have consequences.

flap/flap/SOAR!

winging off to rent a few good men - god i love jack nicholson!

Pete Bogs said...

jack - great to hear that from you... as a Viet Nam vet, you have more direct experience with this kind of thing... I am sure it's disheartening to see the US in another quagmire...

bird - Boxer threw a nice right hook at Inhote... man, he was being an ass... glad I inspired you to see Jack Nicholson, the man!

Anonymous said...

/bark

yeah but the demoncrats cant do anything. what's up with the minimum wage bill? how bout gettin out of iraq? see they are up to their asses in debt to the Kozby kids and can't deliver. now, we have bread and circuses.

of course everybody is going to tell you clinton did the same thing...and he was the first to handle it that way. traditionally, the us attorneys handed in resignations when there was an admin change.

but you aren't going to get much of a dogfight from me. because this administration has sold conservative ideals down the river. when gonzales didnt prevent those border patrol guys from going to prison for doing their jobs, i developed a hate-on for him.

and now with this this dog food thing, turns out tainted wheat from china is the culprit. thats what globalization in overdrive reaps. what the hell is wrong with our own wheat?

and more to the point: it is alarming to note how difficult it is to find food and/or products that are native.

oh and buenas tardes ya'll. (thanks W)

/sorry veered off topic there. rant.out.

/grrrr

Hellpig said...

first off Bush doesnt need a reason to fire any of them...I think he should fire all 93 like CLINTON did even during his whitewash investigation....Dhimmicrates are hypocrites and are political witch hunters and this only proves my point on this non issue of firing only 8 when clinton fired them all,we now see what leftards are all about.The constant bashing of Bush and not doing what they were elected to do.....KILL'em all

Anonymous said...

Hello. I would like to inform the Real World Environment that I have stopped all transmissions of incoming data in the form of "news" from entering my human organism.

Thanks.

Sammy Green

Pete Bogs said...

anon - stay away from the meaty chunks, ok?

so the Chinese are finding ways to kill our dogs, too??? I see another culturally insensitive Bogs blog coming on!

btw, Demons can't get anything done because the majority is not wide enough... Republicants mostly side with their team, even when it is way wrong... and they have become obstructionist since losing the majority...

anon, hell - notice the nonpartisan main point of this post: that all gov't testimony should be done under oath, and in public... doesn't matter what party... there are differences between what Clinton did and what Bush did... it's all out there, if you care to read it... I understand this is common practice - a presidential purge... what isn't common is coming out and saying all those attorneys were fired for performance issues, when most of them had no performance issues (apart from pissing off Republicants)... that's a smear... not standard procedure...

Anonymous said...

/bark bark bark

put 'em on a stick and spin em bogshond! like before! grrehrhaha


/gr

Hellpig said...

Bogs there is absolutely no difference between this and Clinton

The law does not require a reason to list for firing it is a Presidential right!

Pete Bogs said...

hell - here's the story on that...

Several media outlets have compared the Bush administration's controversial dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys to President Clinton's dismissal of almost all U.S. attorneys upon taking office in 1993. Clinton's firing of the prosecutors was highlighted March 13 at Drudgereport.com, the website of Internet gossip Matt Drudge. Over the next 24 hours, several media outlets -- including Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, and MSNBC -- echoed the unfounded comparison between the Clinton and Bush dismissals.

In fact, while both Clinton and Bush dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office following an administration of the opposite party, The Washington Post reported in a March 14 article that "legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors."

A March 13 McClatchy Newspapers article -- headlined "Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys" -- further noted that "[m]ass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration." The article added that "Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees."

I'm going to leave this post up a little longer - it's still certainly relevant!

Hellpig said...

no matter how you spin it the left are witch hunters with BDS and what Clinton did was far worse

Pete Bogs said...

BDS?

Anonymous said...

Bush should be impeached for all the illegal things that he has done. The US would be better off if he was not president.

Hellpig, You have a fucked up viewpoint. I'm glad that you are in the minority.

Fuck off.

Double D said...

The bottom line here is that the Attorneys work at the President's leisure. It doesn't matter why they were fired. It was perfectly legal.

The issue here is the Left's modus operandi on how they are trying to take down the administration. First, they make a major scandal out of a non-issue, then hold a bunch of hearings. If you misspeak, misstep, or contradict yourself at all during the unnecessary trials, then they’ve got you for purgery. Look what happened to Scooter Libby. It is now known that he wasn’t the one who leaked Valerie’s information, yet because of the witch hunt, he is convicted of perjury because of his memory lapse. Valerie Plaimb was not even under-cover at the time she was “outed” by the White House. In fact, she was pictured in prominent magazines with her husband before this whole non-scandal broke out.

So, here we have another case of the Left trying to chip away at the integrity of the White House. Gonzalez may go down for his testimony at a hearing THAT NEVER SHOULD HAVE EVEN HAPPENED!!

And anonymous, show me one thing that the President has done illegally. Its all hearsay and spin.

Bogs, as for you wanting testimony, it has been a standard practice for decades that Presidential advisors do not go under oath unless under extreme circumstances. That isn’t something President Bush made up; it is a precedent that was in place long before he got there. I agree with the precedent, because there are a lot of top secret things which are passed between the President and his staff and that doesn’t need to be aired out because it could compromise national security. Also, if you were a staffer for the President, you wouldn’t feel comfortable in giving candid policy advice if you always had the threat over your head of being called before Congress.

Jack K. – if we get out of Iraq, we will be admitting defeat. I’m former military too, having served in the Marines during Desert Storm, and if the ground commanders think we need to be there, then we still need to be there. If we pull out, Iraq will turn into even a worse place from which Al-Qaida can do their dirty work. We need to have patience in Iraq. Fighting terrorists is 10 times harder than fighting an organized, recognized government.

Anonymous said...

Fuck off mother fucker.

Hellpig said...

BDS Bush Derangement Syndrome

Anon minority yet we rule,dumbass liberal anti american pro terrorist socialist POS

Anonymous said...

Hellpig. I dare you to say those words directly in my face. Fuck off.

Double D said...

Hey anonymous, trust me, I know you don't have the guts to tell me to f**k off to my face. And if by some reason of insanity you did muster up the courage, I would show you exactly why the Marine Corps is the toughest fighting force in America. By the way, you never answered my challenge, which was to "show me one thing that the President has done illegally." That's because you can't. So instead, you chose to drop the f-bomb. That exposes you as the ill-informed idiot you are. I try to be very polite while blogging, but you don't deserve that.

Pete Bogs said...

double d - funny, what you said almost sounded identical to the situation we had with the Clinton impeachment...

that "top secret" excuse provides perfect cover for zero accountability... I am aware presidents don't want their people under oath or in public, but as I have stated, I disagree with that policy... it gives people like Bush too much license... no, I do not trust that everything they're doing is in my best interest... some things have to be confidential (location of our missiles, etc.) but if Gonzo doesn't want it to be known that he told Bush torture statutes don't apply to him, fuck him...

ALL - I don't like you attacking each other personally... I tolerate some attacks to myself, but prefer my guests "attack" each other only through attacking their views...

Anonymous said...

DD, STFU, OK?

Double D said...

Bogs, there's a big difference between legally firing someone working for you and having sex with someone working for you, while on duty, in the oval office. That's called sexual harassment and is illegal.

When talking about presidential advisors, why do you single out Bush as being untrustworthy? Why not Clinton and Carter? Bush has been engaged in a "terror" clean-up operation that was left by the Clinton administration. Clinton's 8 years of appeasement led to the radical muslims thinking we don't have the guts to take the fight to them. Well, we do, we are, and its going to take some time. Unless of course the libs in Congress want to bog everything down with needless indictments.

Anonymous, I will never, ever, STFU!! I will champion conservatism until the day I die. I'm still waiting for your answer to my comment, not just cursing and name-calling.

Anonymous said...

DD,

How gay are you?

I can tell.

Pete Bogs said...

DD - my eyes are hurting from rolling back so far in my head... I hear this from consternos: Clinton was a lunatic because he attacked Milosevic... he was a wimp because he didn't attack Osama... whether or not he took military action, he was not going to get any slack from you guys... if I were to listen to you, it would mean believing that Clinton is responsible for everything from 9/11 to the Holocaust... Republicants need a new demon, and a new script... hey, guess what, it's not the 90s anymore...

Bush's cleanup operation is fomenting terrorism... smart Americans and pretty much the rest of the world can see that... this will end badly if Bush stays on this course...

Double D said...

Fomenting terrorism! Bogs, you've gotta be kidding me! So if we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now, the nice little terrorists will just put down their guns and bombs and will play nice in the sandbox with all the other kids?

Clinton isn't a demon to attack. I actually liked Bill Clinton personally. He seemed like a very charming, warm, and humorous person. Also, as a musician myself, I like the fact that he played the sax. He instituted some policies which definitely helped our country. But he dropped the ball in a lot of major areas which left the U.S. more vulnerable to attack and looking like a bunch of wimps. Also, his brokering of nuclear technology to Korea has kind of backfired too, wouldn't you say?

As I'm entering a busy period at work, I probably won't be surfing around too much anymore (also, my computer at home is dead). So keep thinking and remember to never trust the mainstream media and look at all the facts for yourself.

Anonymous, I know this may disappoint you, but I am happily married...to a...woman. Between you and me, you may want to keep your homosexual musings to yourself.

Pete Bogs said...

DD - sorry to hear you won't be coming around more...

Iraq would not be the terrorist haven it is now had we not invaded... we stirred up a hornet's nest there...

I hear you on NK... but look also at where supporting bad countries (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chile, etc.) under the banner of anti-communism has backfired... in many cases, we ended up with far worse...

take care, my friend...