Well, here is a person with a 26 year history within the DOJ coming right out and saying what so many of us have suspected over these last many months, as more and more dirt is uncovered about the politicization of the legal system.

Deny it all you want people, but those charged with upholding the laws of this nation as its most revered guardians are instead using the system as a weapon against its political opponents unlike any others before.

those charged with upholding the laws of this nation as its most revered guardians are instead using the system as a weapon against its political opponents unlike any others before.


Unlike any others before?


You mean this is the first administration to play hardball politics and manipulate their powers to suit their own ends?

We are at CRITICAL MASS Man Your Deflector Stations.

Larry

bwhahahahahahahah

"You mean this is the first administration to play hardball politics and manipulate their powers to suit their own ends?"

To this degree, yes. Do you have any examples of, say, the Vice President claiming Executive Privledge in the same week he claims he's not a part of the Executive Branch?

I am not deflecting at all, Larry.


I don't deny that this is a shitty, corrupt administration.


I was merely pointing out the absurdity of Tony's statement "unlike any before."

A simple reading of our nation's history turns that over-the-top statement on its head.

It doesn't matter if other administrations prior to this one have abused their power. The point is that this current administration is an embarassment to America and to the world. Comparisons to prior administrations should not have been included in the article, because it only incites debate on that tangential issue, and causes some to miss the fact that every other word the writer said was true.

Good point, Joe.

I couldn't agree more.

In more than a quarter of a century at the DOJ, I have never before seen such consistent and marked disrespect on the part of the highest ranking government policymakers for both law and ethics. It is especially unheard of for U.S. attorneys to be targeted and removed on the basis of pressure and complaints from political figures dissatisfied with their handling of politically sensitive investigations and their unwillingness to "play ball." Enough information has already been disclosed to support the conclusion that this is exactly what happened here, at least in the case of former U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico (and quite possibly in several others as well). Law enforcement is not supposed to be a political team sport, and prosecutorial independence and integrity are not "performance problems."

Sorry Jeff, but my words only mirror those of Koppel, whom I believe has much more knowledge in this area than all of us combined.

Joe...

I agree with you, but the chief defense of the Administration's supporters has always been "We're doing the same things that others did before." From conflating the replacement of USAs at the beginning of a new President's term to that of firing ones, without cause, in the middle of a term that the same President hired in the first place and then lying about the reasons why, this has been the standard defense of things that I agree with you to be undefendable.

One has to compare with like things in order to understand what the differences are, but I agree that comparison isn't the point in and of itself. The point is certain things are wrong regardless of who does them or orders them done.

If anti-American traitors were able to infiltrate our government, how much more destructive could they realistically be and get away with it?

Tony,


Here is the key:


In more than a quarter of a century at the DOJ, I have never before seen such consistent and marked disrespect on the part of the highest ranking government policymakers for both law and ethics.


When I read that, I take it to mean that he is talking about ONLY the last 25 years - events that he personally witnessed. In THAT sense, I agree with his (and your) statement.

If he (and you) is talking about our entire history, then my original comment stands.

The point is certain things are wrong regardless of who does them or orders them done.


Exactly!


This is precisely why Joe's point was so salient - comparisons result in ardent defenders making insipid points like, "Well, Clinton did this......FDR did that...etc."

They also underscore Congress' lack of wisdom in blindly trusting the administration, largely rubber-stamping its legislative proposals, and essentially abandoning the congressional oversight function for most of the last six years. These are, after all, the same leaders who brought us the WMD fiasco, the unnecessary and disastrous Iraq war, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, warrantless domestic NSA surveillance, the Valerie Wilson leak, the arrest of Brandon Mayfield, and the Katrina response failure. The last thing they deserve is trust.

The reason such a broad statement likely stands as true has as much to do with the legislative help that Bush needed in order to have the cover in doing what he's done. Unless there are similar times in our history where Congress has abdicated its role as overseer of the Executive Branch, its unlikely that such things could have occurred due to the fact that they would have been illegal and/or unconstitutional in most every other administration and I doubt whether those Congress' would have allowed that to happen.

Don't forget, most of the alleged malfeasance took place because the Patriot Act unknowingly allowed the DOJ to bypass Congress in appointing USAs. I do believe this to be unprecedented in our history, not to mention Gonzales signing off some of his powers to certain subordinates.

I guess the Dixie Chicks were right after all.

And yes, I do think the pudgy one is kinda cute.

i gotta bet here if any lefties are up to it?

if a dem wins in 2008 will it be inside or outside 2 years before said dem will say but bush did it....

any takers on the bet?

Who's duty is it to put members of this administration on trial. They only have about 500 days.

if a dem wins in 2008 will it be inside or outside 2 years before said dem will say but bush did it....

any takers on the bet?

Posted by cheka


Cheka, that's absolutely one of my biggest fears. The damage done to this country by Bush, Cheney, et al will be difficult if not impossible to undo. Those that follow will do exactly as you're saying. That's also why every investigation, subpoena, challenge to Bush admin policies is so critically important. Every American that's paying attention should be shouting that from the top of the mountain.

if a dem wins in 2008 will it be inside or outside 2 years before said dem will say but bush did it....

any takers on the bet?

Can you remember one time that anyone used the term to deflect from what Clinton did while he was still President?

Cheka, that's absolutely one of my biggest fears. The damage done to this country by Bush, Cheney, et al will be difficult if not impossible to undo. Those that follow will do exactly as you're saying. That's also why every investigation, subpoena, challenge to Bush admin policies is so critically important. Every American that's paying attention should be shouting that from the top of the mountain.

Posted by Reagan58 at 2007-07-09 01:36 PM | Reply


Are we AMericans or are We pussies?? We will bounce back. It is going to be one tough Mofo but Hells Bells If We want to be able to hold our collective heads up High We will HAVE To fix the problems Dubya has wrought upon America. We will have to reach deep within Ourselves but We CAN get there. GUARANTEED.

Larry

larry i agree but if you choose to lump all the probs on dubya you are imho missing the point

plenty of dems to blame for this fiasco

lets not forget them

larry i agree but if you choose to lump all the probs on dubya you are imho missing the point

plenty of dems to blame for this fiasco

lets not forget them

Posted by cheka at 2007-07-09 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

NO SIr this one is on Dubya and His Administration. It is HIS War do not forget. I will not I repeat NOT put up with deflections anymore.

Larry

NO SIr this one is on Dubya and His Administration. It is HIS War do not forget. I will not I repeat NOT put up with deflections anymore.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-07-09 01:55 PM |

I think there are about 500 Congressional and Senate members who thought otherwise back in 03.They couldn't wait to get behind the President.

I think there are about 500 Congressional and Senate members who thought otherwise back in 03.They couldn't wait to get behind the President.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-09 01:59 PM | Reply


You are being intellectually dishonest. They were supporting Dubya going to the UN Security COuncil to obtain the Necessary resolutions to force Saddam to Disarm. You conveniantly forget about that HUGE Fact.

Larry

I will not I repeat NOT put up with deflections anymore.

Shuster'em Larry! Shuster'em until they stop repeating the lies which they hear from their heroes who pardon treason as merely "the prosecution of politics".

You are being intellectually dishonest. They were supporting Dubya going to the UN Security COuncil to obtain the Necessary resolutions to force Saddam to Disarm. You conveniantly forget about that HUGE Fact.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-07-09 02:02 PM

I guess they were waiting for another 17 UN Resolutions to be ignored?

I guess they were waiting for another 17 UN Resolutions to be ignored?

How many has Israel ignored Crispee? When does our invasion of the Sinai begin?

Seriously, what law gave the US the right to militarily enforce UN Sanctions without the tacit approval of the Security Council in the first place?

And more importantly, exactly which sanctions did we find Iraq in violation of since they had no stockpiles of usable WMDs anyway nor any active nuclear programs?

FACT BOX
"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.

The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution

Notice number 2 Larry? The little bit about enforcing the 17 UN Resolutions? What did you say about waiting for the UN? Since there is no ties to the UN?

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

How could he give up that which he didn't have Crispee?

And more importantly, exactly which sanctions did we find Iraq in violation of since they had no stockpiles of usable WMDs anyway nor any active nuclear programs?

Posted by tonyroma at 2007-07-09 02:09 PM |
Not sure Tony. At the time it was ACCEPTED Saddam still had WMDs.He had not allowed inspectors since 1998. I would be happy to post all the leaders from both Houses as well as both aisles of the political spectrum who all agreed.

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

How could he give up that which he didn't have Crispee?

Posted by tonyroma at 2007-07-09 02:14 PM

I guess the UN, Congress and every other Intelligence Agency worldwide were wrong?

The apologists abound. Nothing will convince them short of America coming to an end as we know it.

It's like some kind of mental illness.

Tony,
Just out of curiosity... Why were there no inpsectors in Iraq since 1998?

The apologists abound. Nothing will convince them short of America coming to an end as we know it.

It's like some kind of mental illness.

Posted by briwo at 2007-07-09 02:18 PM |

I agree with you Briwo. Why do you and Tony and most of the left give all Dems a free pass? Why do you apologize for their votes? Maybe not you per say. But how is being an apologist for the left any different than being an apologist for Bush?

(2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.

The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution

Notice number 2 Larry? The little bit about enforcing the 17 UN Resolutions? What did you say about waiting for the UN? Since there is no ties to the UN?

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-09 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

NONE of the Relevant UN Resolutions Gave Automatic AUthorization for the use of Military Force. Do try again Crispee.

Larry

bwhahahahahahahah hells bells lets look at the Favourate 2 scapegoats the blastid Republicans use

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-07-09 02:19 PM

Seems there are a couple more scapegoats Larry. Except these are the leaders of the respected Houses.

Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse."

Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.

"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.

Crispee...

There were inspectors on the ground in Iraq for months before we invaded. They found nothing. Saddam submitted the reports that were asked of him, but Bush decreed that he was still hiding WMDs from the world. The facts proved that he wasn't.

The statements of un-informed people inside the US from both parties does not mitigate the reality that the reasons for our invasion were indeed bogus (related to WMDs) and illegal based on international law. There is no exception for pre-emption in international law. You cannot kill someone based on what you believe they might do in the future if given the opportunity.

Crispee: After 9/11, given the intelligence that was forced on us I think most people agrees to go after Saddam, and yet here we are in Iraq.

Can you explain that?

NONE of the Relevant UN Resolutions Gave Automatic AUthorization for the use of Military Force. Do try again Crispee.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-07-09 02:22 PM

So in other words the UN Resolutions did not have military action as a consequence to Saddam thumbing his nose at the world? Why in the fuck would we want to depend on the UN? Which is NOW what those on the left who voted for military action are claiming?

sorry, go after OBL is what I meant.

Crispee You don't want the fucking truth You just want to deflect Responsibility like usual. Personally I like You Politically You are the drizzling shits.

Larry

I agree with you Briwo. Why do you and Tony and most of the left give all Dems a free pass? Why do you apologize for their votes? Maybe not you per say. But how is being an apologist for the left any different than being an apologist for Bush?

No one is giving them a break, but the only one who asked for authorization to invade Iraq was GEORGE W. BUSH, not Kerry, Larry, Jerry, or any other politician within our government. They all should be held responsible for being wrong on such an enormous scale, but I'm not defending them, I'm condemning them all for the needless death and suffering their mistakes in judgment have caused uncountable scores of people, no matter how righteous the cause looked to begin with.

See everyone bought the bogus intel, because who would have thought they had so serioulsy lied and cooked the books?

So in other words the UN Resolutions did not have military action as a consequence to Saddam thumbing his nose at the world? Why in the fuck would we want to depend on the UN? Which is NOW what those on the left who voted for military action are claiming?

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-09 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Nope they sure didn't. Oh and that is not what the the Left is claiming now. It's what was said before the Iraq War started. Or have You forgotten about that little tidbit.

Larry

Why in the fuck would we want to depend on the UN? Which is NOW what those on the left who voted for military action are claiming?

I can think of a couple trillion reasons ($) off the top of my head, not to mention a destabilized ME with an AQ component that didn't exist before we let them enter Iraq, and an energized Iran waiting for the dust to settle from our screw-up.

People wanted the UN involved as peacekeepers so that our troops could get out of the role of occupiers. Obviously, its a little late now since there is scant little peace to keep!

sorry, go after OBL is what I meant.

Posted by briwo at 2007-07-09 02:28 PM |

I knew what you meant. I didn't really know enough at the time to dispute what the White House claimed about the Iraq and Al Qeada connection. I was all for going after any terrorist state in the Middle East. In my opinion our goal was no different than to eliminate organized crime regardless of which family at the time was killing who. To me it is no different. Just because the Gambino family killed 10 people doesn't mean you let the rest of the other families off the hook. I view them all as the same. An enemy is an enemy and it doesn't matter who committed the acts of terrorism.

People wanted the UN involved as peacekeepers so that our troops could get out of the role of occupiers. Obviously, its a little late now since there is scant little peace to keep!

Posted by tonyroma at 2007-07-09 02:33 PM | Rep

Funny Tony. The problem is the UN refused to anything. They would not engage Saddam. Period.

Crispee You don't want the fucking truth You just want to deflect Responsibility like usual. Personally I like You Politically You are the drizzling shits.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-07-09 02:28 PM |

The truth is in the vote Larry. I would be a fool to try and deflect anything Bush has decided to do. I just get angered when both sides are to blame and one couldn't have done anything without the other.

BTW Larry those caveats by Hillary and or Kerry were not written in the text of what they were voting on. It was quite clear Bush wanted the authority to invade Iraq and take out Saddam. If they wanted all these conditions met they shouldn't have voted yes.

not to mention a destabilized ME with an AQ component that didn't exist before we let them enter Iraq

Posted by tonyroma at 2007-07-09 02:33 PM

Tony,

What was stable about the Middle East before the Iraq invasion?

""I knew what you meant. I didn't really know enough at the time to dispute what the White House claimed about the Iraq and Al Qeada connection.""

So, now that you have had the opportunity to understand that the Bush WH lied to Congress and you as part of the American people to take us to war unnecessarily, without reasonable planning or dedicated resources and troops, etc....so now....don't you want those people who did that to face consequences for their actions????

What was stable about the Middle East before the Iraq invasion?

For one thing, Saddam prevented Iran from dominating the region. Now, Iran basicly becomes a "super power" of that region which they could not have been before.

No one is giving them a break, but the only one who asked for authorization to invade Iraq was GEORGE W. BUSH, not Kerry, Larry, Jerry, or any other politician within our government. They all should be held responsible for being wrong on such an enormous scale, but I'm not defending them, I'm condemning them all for the needless death and suffering their mistakes in judgment have caused uncountable scores of people, no matter how righteous the cause looked to begin with.

Posted by tonyroma at 2007-07-09 02:29 PM


Thanks for a little honesty Tony. I don't agree, but at least someone is being balanced. I still think SH needed to be removed and it would have sent a message to any Country we find responsible for killing innocent Americans in the name of Islam.

For one thing, Saddam prevented Iran from dominating the region

Posted by danni at 2007-07-09 02:45 PM

Really??? I didn't know Iraq defeated Iran. Is that progressive history 101? If I remember right they both lost about a million people and there was no winner. Not that I am surprised you are a Saddam fan. Or Castro fan. Or Chavez fan....

BTW Larry those caveats by Hillary and or Kerry were not written in the text of what they were voting on. It was quite clear Bush wanted the authority to invade Iraq and take out Saddam. If they wanted all these conditions met they shouldn't have voted yes.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-09 02:40 PM | Reply

You obviously do not understand what these folks were saying on the Senate floor when the vote was counted. That is Painfully Obvious.

Larry

Crispee,

You're being a little obtuse with your comment to Danni about Iraq preventing Iran from dominating.

No, Iraq didn't defeat Iran.

Iraq did, however, prevent Iran from dominating. The two countries held a very bloody stale-mate, thereby preventing dominance by either.

Thanks for a little honesty Tony. I don't agree, but at least someone is being balanced. I still think SH needed to be removed and it would have sent a message to any Country we find responsible for killing innocent Americans in the name of Islam.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-09 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Saddam Hussein was SECULAR and NOT Responsible for killing Innocent Americans or did You not get THAT Memo either??

Larry

Larry (if you are still around),


As you and I both know, the inspectors were removed in '08 as a safety precaution by the Clinton administration due to the impending 'Operation Desert Fox.'


However, that doesn't explain why they weren't brought back in after the bombing took place.

Do you know why they weren't brought back in? (it's a serious question - I don't know if serious attempts to get them back in were made, and you are like an encyclopedia when it comes to this stuff)

You obviously do not understand what these folks were saying on the Senate floor when the vote was counted. That is Painfully Obvious.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-07-09 02:51 PM |

Larry,
The verbage is the same for all who read and vote. If they had other ideas than what was presented, then they should have abstained or simply voted NO.You seem to forget what the prevailing atttiude was back in October of 2002.

Larry,


Saddam WAS responsible for killing (and wounding) some Americans.


My source information is in a book, which is at home (I am currently at the office).


Would you like me to source it for you this evening?

If so, do you want me to post it on this thread, or just shoot you an email?

As you and I both know, the inspectors were removed in '08 as a safety precaution by the Clinton administration due to the impending 'Operation Desert Fox.'

Not trying to be a dick, but either the "'08" thing is a typo, or Jeff has some inside info on hillary regarding the '08 election.

Saddam Hussein was SECULAR and NOT Responsible for killing Innocent Americans or did You not get THAT Memo either??

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-07-09 02:53 PM

Really? I guess the 1991 invasion of Kuwaiit and our involvement didn't count? I do believe Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement and it involved attacks on American soldiers. Does the fact Saddam supported organizations who have killed americans outside Iraq count?

As you and I both know, the inspectors were removed in '08 as a safety precaution by the Clinton administration due to the impending 'Operation Desert Fox.'


However, that doesn't explain why they weren't brought back in after the bombing took place.

Do you know why they weren't brought back in? (it's a serious question - I don't know if serious attempts to get them back in were made, and you are like an encyclopedia when it comes to this stuff)

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-07-09 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Yeah I have a mind like a steal trap what good it does Me I dunno. But the Inspectors were removed because Saddam Hussein wouldn't work with the CIA Planted ones. Now as per Your question. Do You Honestly think bringing them back in would have been safe?? Iraq was just bombed for pete sake. Would You allow Me in YOUR Home after I fire bombed it??

Larry

Really? I guess the 1991 invasion of Kuwaiit and our involvement didn't count? I do believe Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement and it involved attacks on American soldiers. Does the fact Saddam supported organizations who have killed americans outside Iraq count?

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-09 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

First of all The US Gave Saddam the Ogreen light to go into Kuwait until Saudi Arabi got pissed. Let us not forget that Gulf War one was a UN War NOT a US War. If You are refering to the NO Fly Zones and attacks upon the Patrols Saddam Hussein had every right under the sun to protect His Air Space. Those No Fly Zones were Blatantly Illegal on their face. You can not have full sovereignty over a Country if You allow for No Fly Zones. Name One organization that Saddam Hussein supported killing AMericans?? Name one?? You can't because they do not exist.

Cease Fire was Permanently established April 3 1991 at Safwan Iraq.

Larry

Saddam WAS responsible for killing (and wounding) some Americans.


My source information is in a book, which is at home (I am currently at the office).


Would you like me to source it for you this evening?

If so, do you want me to post it on this thread, or just shoot you an email?

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-07-09 02:56 PM | Reply


Yeah i will take a look at it. You got My Email.

Larry

Name One organization that Saddam Hussein supported killing AMericans?? Name one?? You can't because they do not exist.
Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-07-09 03:05 PM

Not as much as the $22000 Saddam pays, true, but still about eleven times the ... of millions of petro-dollars to finance the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah, ...
www.nationalreview.com/cohen/
cohen011303


Saddam Pays Palestinian Terrorists While Iraqis "Suffer From Sanctions"
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 15, 2002

THIS PAST MARCH 25 in the packed Palestine Chamber of Commerce hall, those in attendance emitted a collective, audible gasp in response to this very special announcement: Iraqi president Saddam Hussein will henceforth pay $25,000 apiece to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. This represents a significant increase over the traditional "going rate" of $10,000 designed to help entice the rest of Yasser Arafat's legendary "million martyrs" to volunteer for their own glorious suicidemurders. After the announcement was made, the men at the head table proceeded to call out the names of fortyseven recent "martyrs," whose surviving relatives then proudly stepped forward to sign for their checks. With these payments, Saddam's cumulative intifadaera contributions to the families of Palestinian terrorists eclipsed the $10 million mark.

In the weeks since Iraq upped its payments for suicide bombings, a dozen additional Palestinian "martyrs" have successfully struck civilian targets in Israel including one who killed twentyfive Israelis, many of them elderly, as they shared a Passover meal at a hotel. The parents of these bombers, of course, are now scheduled to receive their ample stipends from Saddam a reward for having done such a masterful job of raising the coldeyed, remorseless, savages who were once their children.

Good catch, Rev.

I meant to type: '98.

UN Resolution 678 is the ONLY Resolution that gave automatic authorization for the use of Military force and that only allowed for the forcable Removal of Saddam Hussein and His Military from Kuwait NOTHING more nothing less than that. That AUthorization was still allowed in UN Resolution 686. It was Formally ended in UN Resolution 687 Articles 33 and 34. The following resolutions never gave Automatic AUthorization for the use of Military force including UN resolution 1441. just an FYI For You Crispee.

Larry

Crispee You want Me to take the National Review Seriously?? =That would be like Me sourcing Michael Moore. Give Me a Break.


Larry

JeffJ why do I get the feeling You are talking about The Connection book by Stephen F hayes?? Is THAT the book that You are talking about??

Larry

The following resolutions never gave Automatic AUthorization for the use of Military force including UN resolution 1441. just an FYI For You Crispee.

Larry
This seems to confirm your post Larry. JOC.. What the hell were the serious consequences???


The United Kingdom's representative said the resolution made crystal clear that Iraq was being given a final opportunity. The Iraqi regime now faced unequivocal choice: between complete disarmament and the serious consequences indicated in the resolution.

The representative of the United States noted that, while primary responsibility rested with the Council for the disarmament of Iraq, nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security.

Crispee that was up to the UN Security COuncil to decide. NOT the United States. Nice try yet again Crispee.

larry

The representative of the United States noted that, while primary responsibility rested with the Council for the disarmament of Iraq, nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security.


Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-09 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Read Articles 12 through 14 of the UN Resolution 1441` and that goes contrary what You are spewing. Nice try yet again.

Larry

Iraqi president Saddam Hussein will henceforth pay $25,000 apiece to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-09 03:11 PM

If I recall correctly, at about this same time several members of the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia were also making similar pledges of payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Did we ever hear anyone in the Cheney/Bush White House suggest that perhaps we needed to deal with the Saudis as well as the Iraqis over this issue? I think not!!!!

OCU

Larry
This seems to confirm your post Larry.

I guess you missed that post before spewing ????

If I recall correctly, at about this same time several members of the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia were also making similar pledges of payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Did we ever hear anyone in the Cheney/Bush White House suggest that perhaps we needed to deal with the Saudis as well as the Iraqis over this issue? I think not!!!!

OCU

Posted by oldCADuser at 2007-07-09 03:27 PM |


I am sure there are plenty of threads to bash Bush and Cheney. Why did you feel compelled to come into the middle of this and post that crap?

Larry,


No, it's not THAT book.


I don't remember the book title off the top of my head, but the author was Miniter - my wife bought it for me for Christmas (unsolicited) a year and a half ago.


When I provide the info, I'll source Miniter's sources (from his endnotes).

Richard Minter Christian Science Monitor Shadow War?? You mean THAT Book??

Larry

Miniter^

Larry
This seems to confirm your post Larry.

I guess you missed that post before spewing ????

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-09 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


The representative of the United States noted that, while primary responsibility rested with the Council for the disarmament of Iraq, nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security.


Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-09 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv


This is the SPEW I was refering to Crispee!!!!!!!!

Larry

This is the SPEW I was refering to Crispee!!!!!!!!

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-07-09 03:43 PM |

Larry,
How many fucking times do I have to say you were right? I was baffled by your assumption I was 'spewing'. Thats why I ended it with a question mark.

Then why did You add the rest??

Larry

The following resolutions never gave Automatic AUthorization for the use of Military force including UN resolution 1441. just an FYI For You Crispee.

Larry
This seems to confirm your post Larry. JOC.. What the hell were the serious consequences???


The United Kingdom's representative said the resolution made crystal clear that Iraq was being given a final opportunity. The Iraqi regime now faced unequivocal choice: between complete disarmament and the serious consequences indicated in the resolution.

The representative of the United States noted that, while primary responsibility rested with the Council for the disarmament of Iraq, nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security.


Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-09 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I guess I shouldn't have proven your post? My bad.

Larry,


I am pretty confident it's not "Shadow War." I am familiar with "Shadow War", although I haven't read that book.

Back on topic, does anyone want to defend the practices of the Bush Department of Justice headed by Alberto Gonzales?

Losing Bin laden??

Larry

Larry,


I think it was "22 Media Myths that Undermine the War on Terror"

It's amazing the way a thread about the gross and perhaps illegal conduct of the Bush Administration denigrates into a righties case for war with Iraq.

There's SO much more to talk about than that with regards to this thread.

We survived McCarthy and Watergate. We'll survive this. The good news is the public is finally starting to get engaged in the true issues facing us today. Namely, that we demand the truth and accountability from our President, and will vote with our memories intact for the forseeable future. No more gay marriage or abortion to distract us from the REAL and pressing issues facing us as a nation.

TR-- If you think DOJ was politicized, just look at DOD. DOD was politicized on day one, and boy did it ever happen FAST! One day it's W's inauguration, the next week the admin is blowing things up in Iraq! And with UK help -- and that combined ops takes a lot of planning and coordination! A few months later, we're nearly at China's throat, and they're celebrating knocking down one of our EP-3s. Putin and Dubya look each other in the eye, and then Putin's playing passive aggressor against every one of our diplomatic moves. Richard Clarke says watch out for terrorism in the US, and then he's fired. And Dubya and Dick begins to plaster their faces over every DOD facility and in every DOD related printing press, and then 9/11 happened. Next thing, we almost succeed in Afghanistan and then give UBL a Christmas pass to Pakistan and we start targeting 3 unrelated countries in an imaginary axis of Dubya's and Cheny's contrived minds. And take a chance to offer any educated dissent? Forget about it!

TNC...

Its all atrocious no matter how you slice it. The military-industrial complex has become filthy rich on the backs and blood of working Americans while the chickenhawks wave flags and call opponents "defeatists" or worse, on their way to the next war someone else's children will die in.

Somehow, between 1992 and 1995, the military had been inculcated to believe that WJC was the living incarnation of all that was evil and unAmerican. Not everyone, but the Pentagon sentiment was nurtured by junior and senior oficials with ties to the RR and GHWB administrations. When Dubya was inaugurated, the brass all beleived that the new masters coming in were the DOD's saviors, even if Rummy's buzzword for the 1st 6 months was "transformation".

Seems that some were so willing to see what they hoped to see, that they were blinded by the reality -- a bunch of military industrial neocon schills had taken over every nook and cranny of DOD in a matter of weeks. And now the military and the rest of the nation and much of the world is paying the price!

An old Admiral (Vice Admiral William Mack) once said at his retirement ceremony in 1974 at Annapolis that it was every officer's duty to be informed of current events, to be informed of the political dsecisions being made around them, and to act out of conscientious loyalty to the Constitution first. And the in carrying out this duty, it was always an officer's duty to dissent whenever appropriate.

Man! Did General Myers and company ever mess up on that one!

Sad, even for crispy to try and move the subject away from the descent of our justice system.

Nothing is going to happen until our congress gets off their collective asses and takes it to this administration.

Whether they can get an impeachment doesn't really matter, it should be started and continued even after Bush leaves office. When he leaves they should continue so they can Jail him through the very justice system he has circumvented.

"Nothing is going to happen until our congress gets off their collective asses and takes it to this administration."

What do you call a subpeona? Or 300 investigations?

You know, the more I see of this morass, the sorrier I am that Ford pardoned Nixon for Watergate. At the time, it was thought that the process of bringing a President to trial for his misdeeds was more than the country could withstand, and I will be the first to admit that I bought into that attitude then. Today, I'm 180 degrees away from that stance; I think if we'd tried and convicted a President then, we might not be looking at this mess now. Old photos of Nixon being perp-walked in cuffs, or behind bars, might have been a very useful deterrent these past few years.

I still believe that Ford was genuinely doing what he thought best, but then, everybody thought at the time that Nixon's crimes were a never-to-be-repeated aberration. Now we are wiser, and definitely sadder.

and, unless I missed it, this person made not one reference to a prosecuter who KNEW WHO WAS GUILTY and yet went after someone else anyway....and it makes no difference who appointed him or how he votes, without some sort of comment or acknowledgement of that.......there goes all credibility....

and another thing...

the left is doing all it can to make this adiministration into watergate and iraq into vietnam...

two things that they were successfull with.....( and notably two bad things for america)........but lets then look at what happend when that all shook out by 1980.....they got thier fuckin ass kicked............so there might be a bright side afterall.......

You know, the more I see of this morass, the sorrier I am that Ford pardoned Nixon for Watergate. At the time, it was thought that the process of bringing a President to trial for his misdeeds was more than the country could withstand, and I will be the first to admit that I bought into that attitude then. Today, I'm 180 degrees away from that stance; I think if we'd tried and convicted a President then, we might not be looking at this mess now. Old photos of Nixon being perp-walked in cuffs, or behind bars, might have been a very useful deterrent these past few years.

I still believe that Ford was genuinely doing what he thought best, but then, everybody thought at the time that Nixon's crimes were a never-to-be-repeated aberration. Now we are wiser, and definitely sadder.

So true, so true. And less we forget, the lessons of Watergate were quickly forgotten during the Reagan-Bush Administration only a decade after Nixon's fall, and just like his son, G.W. Bush pardoned the criminals who circumvented the laws of Congress and ran a rouge foreign policy out of the White House basement.

This is why at the minimum, impeachment investigations should be held for both Bush and Cheney while letting the facts either make or disprove the case once and for all. I tire of hearing MSM commentators imply that no "high crimes or misdemeanors" can be traced to Bush and Cheney when the already established fact the warrantless wiretapping violates the FISA Acts, thus are defacto FELONIES, along with all the evidence of torture committed at the behest of this runaway Administration that I believe even Mr. Magoo is capable of finding evidence of willful lawbreaking and crimes against our Constitution.

We need to establish once and for all times that NO MAN or branch of government is above the supreme laws of this land no matter how noble he might feel his actions are. They are either one of two things: legal or illegal. Thats all there is.

"this person made not one reference to a prosecuter who KNEW WHO WAS GUILTY and yet went after someone else anyway"

Maybe because this author knew Fitzgerald was aware of Libby's lies early on in the investigation, and was duty-bound to follow those lies once discovered. Just ask Ken Starr.

BLT, do you know the law covers all leakers, not just the first?

so you are saying that libby was lying even before the case started?
because what I read showed that the pros knew before it ever began.........
but my point is not just about this case....executive priviledge as well....the dems know good and well all about the seperation of powers and executive priviledge since they play it like a fiddle when they are in the white house.......
I repeat.....nam and watergate.......the two glowing moments for dems......and bad times for america.......and so they live in the past......well until they forget they did some of the very same things and then the ole memory gets selective.

BLT, do you know the law covers all leakers, not just the first?

He doesn't have a clue, just like his buddy Bowa. All of the Bush defenders continue to ignore every single piece of evidence Fitzgerald presented underscoring why Libby was the only one charged, along with the unanswered question Why in the hell did the Vice President order Libby and Rove to publicize an undercover CIA agent to begin with?

Was her work a threat to the Administration? Then why bring her into the discussion at all since it was her husband they had the disagreement with? Doesn't this mean that Cheney only brought Plame into the discourse for POLITICAL REASONS? Is there any other possible answer for a Vice President to knowingly out a CIA undercover agent only doing her job to her professional best? What justification can there be for such a disclosure for the sake of political cover?

BLT, do you know the law covers all leakers, not just the first?

Posted by Danforth at 2007-07-10 08:55 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


sure I do.....and with armitege getting off scot free.....maybe you need to remind the pros.......of course if its a bush bash......shit......that trumps everything......

so you are saying that libby was lying even before the case started?
because what I read showed that the pros knew before it ever began.........

One of the charges Libby was convicted of was lying to the FBI investigators long before the special prosecutor was even brought into the case.

"because what I read showed that the pros knew before it ever began..."

Okay, let's say it's that way. Then, in an effort to make sure everyone is telling the truth, just like they do in real life, the investigators keep asking questions, guaranteeing they haven't overlooked anything. In the course of those questions, it becomes obvious that Libby is lying, repeatedly, and purposefully.

Do you throw your hands up and say "well, that's that", or do you pursue the lie, as you're duty-bound to do?

Consult Ken Starr as needed before you answer.

bottom line for some..

joe wilson is a liar and his wife may not have been outed according to the law anyway.......and even if she was the person being investigated was KNOW TO BE INNOCENT.....and yet the pros goes ahead with the investigation.......and the left ignores all of that because its another chance to make watergate out of this administration..........
we can see right through all of it, but keep trying.

"and with armitege getting off scot free..."

Are you aware the law is written narrowly; that the prosecutor must be able to prove intent?

Also, Libby could have avoided all of this by doing something quite simple: tell the truth.

BLT...

It would help if you learned the law and the chronology of events.

The only reason Armitage knew of Plame's existence was because Cheney and Libby ordered the State Department to produce a report on Joe Wilson's trip to Niger and how the CIA sent him. If not for Cheney and Libby, Armitage never would have known Plame's name. When he told Novak about her, he didn't then realize he identity was classified. He cannot be charged with violating the IPA unless there's evidence he knowingly disclosed her identity for which NO EVIDENCE exists proving that he did.

That is why Armitage wasn't charged with a crime, and he made his disclosure before Fitzgerald was appointed as well. So the fact that Armitage was the first leaker still didn't stop the DOJ from appointing Fitzgerald to look further into the other disclosures of Plame's identity to see if they were done with foreknowledge of her classified status. Libby knows whether or not Cheney disclosed her status as classified yet still ordered her name to be publicized. This is the obstruction that Scooter was convicted of making it impossible for Fitzgerald to make this legal determination one way or the other.

okay dan,.....lets give you all of your points for the sake of the discussion..

what is your reasoning for this then,,,,,,
the man who the pros KNEW DID IT has never answered to one single charge and is scot free...........proof to me that this is not about justice in the slightest because if it was, we would have had another trial with the real culprit........couldnt have anything to do with him being anti bush would it????

Also, Libby could have avoided all of this by doing something quite simple: tell the truth.

Posted by Danforth at 2007-07-10 09:20 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e



EXCEPT that this great lie you speak of concerns recollections of talking to tim russert filled with I dont recollect or I cant remember......mainstays of politicos talking to just about anyone after the fact........

"the pros KNEW DID IT"

Bullshit. The crime prosecuted wasn't outine Plame, and Armatige didn't lie before a grand jury. Libby did. And once Libby lied, Armitage's actions didn't matter one whit. You're going to get as much traction out of that as the "well, your honor, others were speeding, too" defense.

"we would have had another trial with the real culprit...."

That shows how little you choose to understand. ANYONE who leaked is a culprit, not just the first person.

Bottom line, Wilson didn't lie about anything and those saying so are liars themselves. We covered all that bullshit in another thread along with the truth surrounding all the rightwing lies over what he said and didn't say.

Secondly, as Danforth and myself have painfully showed you, every single government official that mentioned Plame's classified identity violated the spirit of the IPA law, but unless it could be proved that they knew her identity was classified when they spoke of her, they did not meet the threshold for being prosecuted under the law.

Armitage has been and will always be a dodge and a deflection from the coordinated efforts orchestrated by the Vice President which are on record in both Grand Jury and trial testimony. Armitage speaking to Novak was a fortunate tangential act which has provided those like you with erroneous talking points and the verbal license to obfuscate the damage done by the outing of a CIA operative during a time of war, ie. treason.

"EXCEPT that this great lie you speak of concerns recollections of talking to tim russer"

You should really read the news before you spout ignorance. Six people contradicted Libby under oath.

tony.....I just think that anyone who is after justice and honest justice would see to it that IF there was a crime committed and isnt there still some questions about that.....that if that was thier concern, then libby would not have been the only one in jail....


but again to the subject.......this is just one item in the whole plot to destroy the bush administration and its so plain to see that it sometimes is mind blowing to see............and then I remember the wholesale hypocracy from the left with its hero worship and selective memory when it comes to blow job billy and then I understand..

gotta go.....nice talking civil like with both of you,.........

".couldnt have anything to do with him being anti bush would it????"

Um...sure. The Republican lied to the Republican prosecutor, was convicted under a Republican judge, and that conviction was upheld by a Republican-controlled appellate court.

If that doesn't scream Anti-Bush Conspiracy, what does?

oops.....have to answer the charge from tony....

well according to the NY times wilson is a liar......and if that means that everything they say HAS TO BE TRUE as the left believes....then it doesnt matter if its david Brooks doing the writing.

and from july 6

"wilson claimed that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to investigate irqui purchases in niger, though that seems not to have ben the case. He claimed his trip proves iraq had made no such attempts though his own report said nothing of the kind.
in short order, wilson established himself as the charming pt barnum of the national security set, an invererate huckster who could be counted on to wrap every actual fact in six layers of embellishment"

that to me sounds like a liar.........

Danforth...

Its a crying shame that no one in the MSM has taken the simple time to put together a chronology of the entire Plame incident and explain precisely what did and did not occur during the course of the investigations and Libby's trial.

I am so sick of hearing, "There was no underlying crime," "It was the criminalization of politics," "Libby's only crime was not remembering a conversation with Tim Russert like Russert did."

As you know, each and every statement is unadulterated bullshit straight from the mouths of those still throwing dust into the umpires eyes, with the umpires now being public opinion instead of investigators. A treasonous crime was committed for nothing more than POLITICS, yet defenders of these actions try to claim that the fact this case was immersed in politics somehow negates both the seriousness and the facts as to why this happened in the first place!

Plame was outed for political reasons since there appears to be no other salient cause, so, of course, the pursuit of the reasons why she was outed drives right through the heart of the politics that drove the original decision. Pursuing the truth and the criminals involved cannot avoid politics since politics was the reason the act occurred in the first place!

"bite me dickhead"
Posted by bushlovertwo

Geez...don't blame me for your ignorance. You're the one who spouted the bullshit that it was all about Tim Russert, when anyone with even a passing familiarity with the case would know Libby wasn't just contradicted by Russert, he was contradicted by everybody. The (Republican) judge in the case called the evidence "overwhelming", and on 4 counts, the jury voted unanimously on Scooter's guilt.

But tell us: did you follow the trial and know it was 6 people who testified against Libby, or did you actually only "hear" about it (say, from Rush) to where you really thought it was just Tim Russert?

"I am so sick of hearing, "There was no underlying crime"

Tony,
I now have a rejoinder: Of course there was. Libby lied to cover the fact Cheney had committed a capital crime by directing Libby to out a covert CIA agent in a time of war. Had Libby told the truth, Cheney might be facing the death penalty for War Crimes.

Newsworthy flag, Danforth! And I'd love to see the wingnuts heads start to spin when they're confronted by the truth instead of their insidious, ludicrous spins of deflection.

Slightly of topic, but do you think, like myself, that the only way our involvement inside Iraq's civil war will end while Bush is President will be to impeach him?

I just see that whatever Congress does, he will not order a pullback, even if they cut off funding. I see him leaving US troops with dwindling supplies on the frontlines and then using their worsening plight and increasing casualty rates as leverage to make Congress accede to his wishes.

If Congress orders an investigation into impeachment on this likelihood, then Bush's hands would be tied and all Americans would realize that he deems himself beyond reproach as a supreme leader. I just don't see any other way that Bush will concede to anyone else's wishes. He hasn't so far, so why would he now?

Watergate was a tempest in a teapot.

Watergate was a tempest in a teapot.

Just like the Teapot Dome perhaps. Watergate was merely the first exposed criminal enterprise within every Republican Presidency since Nixon's. What is it about Republicans and the Constitution? Don't they understand oaths are supposed to be kept instead of ignored for the sake of forcing political policies which violate the laws of this nation?

If it isn't the crime, its the cover-up, but the record is clear:

Each and every Republican Administration since 1968 has been embroiled in controversy regarding criminal activity during its reign or in covering up criminality through the use of pardons and commutations for those within the party needing them to stay out of jail or to stay out of the legal system trying to put them into jail.

Tony, you can try and paint this any way you want. The democratic party is trying every possible thing they can to find something on Bush and his administration.

It isn't out of love for the american people or the constitution. Its out of hatred. I have never seen such hate in my life.

300 investigations running concurrently. All to try to attack and stifle the Bush administration.

You would think as many rocks as the democrats have looked under they would have gotten something more than Scooter Libby. One measly conviction out of 300 investigations. I mean the republicans sent numerous Clinton officials to jail out of only a few investigations.

Now more than ever I admire George W. Bush for sticking to his convictions despite the partisan democrat witchhunt.
A weaker man or pussy like Bill Clinton would have closed up shop and went back to Arkansas to screw Jennifer Flowers.

YNK,

The current statement on the table by the DOJ, is, by the DOJ's own admission, a lie. Their next two statements were also both lies: We don't know who compiled that list and We don't know who compiled that list.

Do you want to know the truth, or is it okay if you're lied to, as long as the liar has an (R) after his name?

Sorry, that second lie was:

We don't know why it was compiled.

Danforth, where were at when Clinton fired 99 prosecutors including the one investigation him over Whitewater?

Save you selective outrage for some idiot who cares.

"We need to establish once and for all times that NO MAN or branch of government is above the supreme laws of this land no matter how noble he might feel his actions are. They are either one of two things: legal or illegal. Thats all there is."

That's it in a nutshell. I am so sick of this country being run on the basis of "because I can".

Danforth, where were at when Clinton fired 99 prosecutors including the one investigation him over Whitewater?

Link please. Clinton fired the USAs at the BEGINNING of his presidency, not during the middle of it, and were any of your alleged 99 appointed by Clinton himself?

Mary the whore,

What the fuck are you talking about?

No one has placed themselves above the law unless of course you count Bill Clinton while he was in office.

President Bush is exercising the power and authority given to him by both the constitution and the votes of the people.

You may not like the war or how George Bush carries out his responsibilities as president but he was elected to office.

I for one am very proud that I cast a vote for him in 2000 and 2004.

Tony dumbass,

Clinton fired them all but one. It doesn't matter when he fired them. He fired them for partisan political reasons.

You can't possibly tell me that none of the 99 were qualified to keep the job. So the only other possibility was that he wanted to put in someone who matched his ideas and ideology.

Then there is the prosecutor who was investigating Clinton himself. Firing everyone gave Clinton a soft sell cover my ass story to the already friendly national media whom 92% of voted for Clinton.

"It doesn't matter when he fired them."

Talking point deflection #77, if you're keeping score at home.

Danforth, tell me why did Clinton fire 99 out of 100 prosecutors?

You...

Every president since Reagan has fired all the USAs when they assume the presidency. The difference between Bush's selective firing of his own hirings has been recited in their own words. The mounting evidence shows that they were not fired for the reasons stated under oath by their former superiors, they were fired because they weren't "loyal Bushies" and they wouldn't pursue specific political cases at the behest of Republican officials.

This is not how the Justice Department is supposed to function. Please look above and read the words of a 26 year veteran of the DOJ and understand why the clamor exists. The DOJ is being investigated because of what political appointments have done to the pursuit of justice., turning it into just another political zero-sum game. Its far too important to be lowered into the muck of complete control by politicians.

CRS examined the tenure of all U.S. Attorneys who were confirmed by the Senates between the years 1981 and 2006 to determine how many had served--and of those how many had been forced to resign for reasons other than a change in administration.

The answer is that of the 468 confirmations made by the Senate over the 25-year period, only 10 left office involuntarily for reasons other than a change in administration prior to the firings that took place in December, according to the available evidence gathered by CRS. The average incidence of such involuntary departures was one out of every two-and-a-half years; the largest number of such departures prior to this administration was a total of four departures during the Clinton administration.

But the December firings by the Bush administration stand in even more stark contrast with the firings that took place in previous administrations when the grounds for the departures are examined. In virtually all instances prior to the December firings, including two previous departures during this administration, serious issues of personal or professional conduct appeared to be the driving issue.

Prior to December, for example, only two U.S. Attorneys were outright fired. The first was William Kennedy, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California. The Christian Science Monitor on Apr. 26, 1982 explained that he was dismissed "for charging that the Justice Department, at the request of the Central Intelligence Agency, was blocking his attempt to prosecute Mr. [Miguel] Nassar [Haro], because he had been a key CIA informant on Mexican and Central American affairs."

The second, J. William Petro, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, was dismissed (according to the Oct. 3, 1984 edition of The New York Times) because the Department of Justice was "investigating allegations that Mr. Petro disclosed information about an indictment pending from an undercover operation and that the information reached a subject of the investigation." Petro was later convicted of the charges.

And by the way, the first paragraph of Madison's missive relates to exactly why Alberto Gonazles should be removed from his position by Congress if Bush won't replace his incompetent ass himself.

"Perhaps the great danger, as has been observed, of abuse in the executive power, lies in the improper continuance of bad men in office. But the power we contend for will not enable him to do this; for if an unworthy man be continued in office by an unworthy president, the house of representatives can at any time impeach him, and the senate can remove him, whether the president chuses or not."

Fits Gonzo to a "t" and proves that the President is not above the will of Congress and the people he serves.

TONYROMA

You're just wasting your breath with the mullethead 'mobile home' crowd. They'll support Bush forever.

Heck, it's HARD scraping off the 'W '04' stickers from aluminum on their 'homes' and $50 cars.

This stuff is a little over their heads. If you could put it in World Wrestling Federation context you might get somewhere. Except, they're still arguing whether or not it's faked or their 'wreslin' for reel'.

See everyone bought the bogus intel, because who would have thought they had so serioulsy lied and cooked the books?

Posted by briwo at 2007-07-09 02:29 PM | Reply |

Not everyone... the "Bush was behind 9/11" conspiracy started on 9/12....

"Mary the whore,

What the fuck are you talking about?

No one has placed themselves above the law unless of course you count Bill Clinton while he was in office.

President Bush is exercising the power and authority given to him by both the constitution and the votes of the people.

You may not like the war or how George Bush carries out his responsibilities as president but he was elected to office.

I for one am very proud that I cast a vote for him in 2000 and 2004."

Dear youknewwho:

Your last line is quite possibly the saddest, most self-revealing, and most frightening thing I've ever read.

Tony Romance wrote,

"Every president since Reagan has fired all the USAs when they assume the presidency. The difference between Bush's selective firing of his own hirings has been recited in their own words. The mounting evidence shows that they were not fired for the reasons stated under oath by their former superiors, they were fired because they weren't "loyal Bushies" and they wouldn't pursue specific political cases at the behest of Republican officials."

Lets sift through the lies here. First they were not Bush appointees. Bush came into office and did not fire any U.S. attorneys. They were all Clinton appointees. Later he choose to fire 8 of them. To say they were fired for not being loyal Bush supporters is irrelevent. What was Clintons reason for firing all of them? Obvious to get his supporters in place. You are not holding Clinton accountable for the same political reasoning.

Here's the deal on this whole matter. Bush came into office and did not fire the Clinton appointees in the U.S. Attorneys jobs. Then 6 years into his administration he choose to fire 8 of them for either politcal or competence issues. Either way he had the right to do so.

Because they were Clinton appointees and did not like losing their cushy jobs they decided to raise a stink about the matter. Then the democrats in congress with their allies in the media who never miss an opportunity to attack the Bush administration began to pursue this as if their was a story.

Bush had the right to fire these 8 or all of them when he came into office, a year later, or six years later. If he did so for political reasons that would be the same reason that Bill Clinton done it.

As usual this is an attempt to make the public think something is wrong when it isn't. Thats the same reason there are 300 investigations going on right now. To try to make the republican party look bad so they won't get support.

Tony Aroma wrote,

"Those are the words of James Madison, speaking to precisely what Bush has done in replacing competent USAs through the use of the unconstitutional provision stealthily inserted into the Patriot Act usurping the Senate's rights to vette all USA appointments"

Tony it is your contingent that they were competent. I don't know if they were or not. I do know this at least some of the ones that Clinton replaced were competent. So why did he fire then? How would Madison feel about that? Appalled I am sure. Clintons only possible motive was to politicize the Department of Justice. What a turd he must be to bring politics into the Justice Department. With role models like Clinton it is no wonder Bush thought he could fire only 8.

Now imagine this since Bush did not initially fire any of the Clinton appointees he still had almost all of them working for him 6 years later even after he fired the 8. So Bush allowed Clinton appointees to stay on and work for him but Clinton being the partisan hack that he is fired Bush 41 attorneys only for political reasons.

Um...the 8 were appointed by W Bush, YKW.

That's reason #3 this is a story.

#2 is because it happened in between presidential elections, when the norm is a clean sweep of OTHER presidents attorneys right after an election.

#1 is that Bush used interim replacements them with the patriot act that were not voted on by congress. The usual laws were bypassed.

This is all unprecedented. Period. Oh, and then there are the zillion DOJ lies about the whole thing...Get your facts straight, butthead.

As Bush Replaces Prosecutors, a Formidable One Stays On
Benjamin Weiser. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jun 18, 2001. pg. B.1

"Nearly five months after President George W. Bush was sworn into office, his administration has begun to replace dozens of top federal prosecutors, ousting Democratic appointees across the country and installing Republican selections.

This political rite of change, though, has been postponed in at least one prominent jurisdiction: Mary Jo White, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, has been kept on, largely to complete two politically charged investigations that have already provoked precisely the cries of partisanship Ms. White has so successfully avoided over the last eight years ... "


YKW- Bush came into office and did not fire the Clinton appointees in the U.S. Attorneys jobs.

Like I said: get your facts straight. Especially if you're going to call Tonyroma a liar, idiot.

Bush came into office and did not fire any U.S. attorneys. They were all Clinton appointees. Later he choose to fire 8 of them.

Bullshit idiot. Bush fired the vast majority of the Clinton appointees just like Reagan fired the Carter appointees in his time. The 8, actually 9 USAs that were fired last year were ALL BUSH APPOINTEES to begin with! This is what makes its unprecedented and I've provided the FACTS proving it! Spin and lie all you want because you have zero credibility and everyone sees right through your continued lies and mischaracterizations.

I N Cognito set you straight, I'm merely following in his broad footsteps....Your "facts" have so many holes in them one could drive the entire Smithsonian through them!

But tell us: did you follow the trial and know it was 6 people who testified against Libby, or did you actually only "hear" about it (say, from Rush) to where you really thought it was just Tim Russert?

Posted by Danforth at 2007-07-10 09:49 AM


yes danforth.......but the russert case was the center of the issue because .....ooooooohhhhhhhh he is in the media....

tony.......get a grip.........my comments werent just pulled out of my ass either....
they were quotes from the friggin NY times, a media outlet that is thought to be flawless when they are on thier usual side of an issue.........so your quibble is with them......I just repeatsum as I seesum.

and not one thing any of you have said has changed on simple fact....
the president can fire them for any reason at any time.
just as executive priviledge battles continue.....if there is a dem in the house, it will be sort of like musical chairs.

the president can fire them for any reason at any time.

Has anyone ever argued this fact? NO, they haven't. As I stated earlier, the problems have arisen from the fact that instead of claiming Executive Privilege, the DOJ officials lied to Congress over the reasons for the USAs firings, and Gonzales then replaced some of then by using the unconstitutional provision unknowingly inserted into the Patriot Act by a former member of Alan Specter's staff who then was hired by...........The Justice Department!

See, BLT, you can't overturn the constitution without amending it, and Bush removed Senatorial vetting of DOJ appointments against what the Constitution orders. It isn't simply about the President's prerogative.

The issue is simply this: Every attorney that was fired was first hired and sent before Congress for approval by Bush himself! So unless there were stark performance related issues, why were his own appointees terminated? They were fine in 2001, but inept in 2006? Removing prosecutors because they won't bring dubious charges against innocent people is not okay, infact its illegal specifically if done with the intent of stopping prosecutions of allies of the President and many examples pointing to this likelihood exist.

The investigations are about the criminal misuse of the DOJ. It isn't about Bush's right to name attorneys, its about why specific attorney's were appointed in specific places that imply bias and vendetta, not justice before the law.

Clearly it has already been mentioned the rationale in not replacing Gonzales was the administration would give control to his replacement to the law makers in both houses that are now under the control of Democrats.

This problem doesn't seem limited to Gonzales, but many former and current appointees who were appointed by Bush2.

If the law or information you have doesn't fit the agenda, it will be ignored, burried or covered up appears to be the message this administration is sending.

The strange thing is with the DOJ being holllowed out at the top, the damage has already been done and it's clear the department may have been better off getting a Gonzales replacement

For Gonzales a permanent Bush2 appointee, I wonder where he will go once he leaves the administration as I don't see anyone coming up with wheel barrels filled with money like Libby. If the public has not confidence in our justice system, they will have no respect for the laws it creates either.