« Source: Gov Blanco to Withdraw From Louisiana Gov. Race | Main | Senator Vitter on His Giuliani Endorsement »

Finally Fighting Back -- It's About Time

Republican Bush supporters like me have been begging the administration (and congressional Republicans for that matter) to fight back against the ridiculous and baseless attacks coming from Democrats determined to destroy the President. It looks like the President is finally fighting back.

He's willing to let Gonzales testify before Congress about the U.S. Attorneys matter but the most he'll allow for White House staff like Rove and Harriet Miers is an off-the-record interview for factfinding purposes. No dice, says Leahy, who wants Rove on the hot seat and under oath. So Bush called the presser and told him to get bent, insisting that he's not about to forfeit executive privilege to serve the Democratic interest in "show trials." Which means we're looking at a separation-of-powers showdown, probably in the Supreme Court, unless one or the other side blinks first and relents.
I really hope the President does not back down on this. Recently I posted a column from David Limbaugh urging Republicans to fight back. We should find out soon enough if that is what is happening. I am with Ace on this one.
It's time to go to war with these people. The Democrats, the media, all of them . "F&%# you and the horse you rode in on" should be the operating premise of the administration from this point on, and Bush should begin engaging in the most ruthless of political tit-for-tats, ordering his inferiors to not spend a dime of money for earmarked projects in Democratic districts, etc.


It's called politics, assholes. But apparently it's now criminal for a politician to engage in politics, at least if he's from the wrong party.

It is time to take a few lessons from the Clinton who knows how to play politics and stop squealing like a bunch of pigs (to borrow a phrase from Deliverance). I am sick of whining about media bias. I am not saying I am going to stop doing it, I am just sick of it. Things are the way they are. Life is not fair. We have to deal with reality. The media is not going to give us a fair shake and the Democrats are not going to play fair. I am not saying we stoop to their level. Quite the contrary. I am just saying it is time to stop rolling over.

Update: There are several in the comments section parroting the Dem talking point that I have been seeing on television, "If there is nothing to hide, then why not have them testify under oath in public?" That is an incredibly stupid question to ask so soon after the LIbby trial and the Plame testimony. The White House appears to have learned from the LIbby example that if enough administration officials are questioned long enough under oath, there are likely to be failings in memory that could result in a perjury charge. We just spent a considerable amount of time and money to prosecute a guy the jury even said should be pardoned.

As for the Plame hearing, if anyone watched it they saw not much questioning of witnesses like Victoria Toensing, but rather grandstanding by congressmen that talked on and on and then asked questions only to interrupt before Toensing could answer. It was a farce and nothing more than an excuse for congressmen to pontificate before television cameras. That is why the White House would not want to have Karl Rove dragged before a bunch of preening congressmen and women playing to the television cameras, even if there is "nothing to hide."

One other point on the Plame hearing -- there are some serious problems with her testimony. At the very least her testimony is at odds with documents and testimony received during the Senate committee hearing and with one of Plame's own previous memos. If it was worthwhile for Fitzgerald to pursue the Libby case, the prosecution of Plame for perjury seems almost a slam dunk by comparison. Why isn't anyone demanding that be pursued? Don't bother, I already know that answer.

Update II: Wow, I am agreeing with Dick Morris on this one.

When will the Bush administration grow some guts? Except for its resolute -- read: stubborn -- position on Iraq, the White House seems incapable of standing up for itself and battling for its point of view. The Democratic assault on the administration over the dismissal of United States attorneys is the most fabricated and phony of scandals, but the Bush people offer only craven apologies, half-hearted defenses, and concessions. Instead, they should stand up to the Democrats and defend the conduct of their own Justice Department.

There is no question that the attorney general and the president can dismiss United States attorneys at any time and for any reason. We do not have civil servant U.S. attorneys but maintain the process of presidential appointment for a very good reason: We consider who prosecutes whom and for what to be a question of public policy that should reflect the president's priorities and objectives. When a U.S. attorney chooses to go light in prosecuting voter fraud and political corruption, it is completely understandable and totally legitimate for a president and an attorney general to decide to fire him or her and appoint a replacement who will do so.
...
Bush, Rove, Gonzales and Co. should explain why the U.S. attorneys were dismissed by emphasizing the importance of the cases they were refusing to prosecute. By doing so, they can turn the Democratic attacks on them into demands to go easy on fraudulent voting. A good sense of public relations -- and some courage -- could turn this issue against the Democrats for blocking Bush's efforts to crack down on the criminals he wanted prosecuted.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Finally Fighting Back -- It's About Time:

» Sensible Mom linked with By George, He's Done It

» The Florida Masochist linked with The First Day of Spring Knucklehead Festival Pt 6

Comments (75)

F&%# you and the horse y... (Below threshold)
Clay:

F&%# you and the horse you rode in on

Oh yeah. I like that. And I'll vote against any Republican that doesn't grow balls...quick.

Let's all line up and kick ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Let's all line up and kick p'p''s cut and run whinny ass one after the other.
Just try not to miss and hit his nose.

And while we're at it, let'... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

And while we're at it, let's kick a little ass on Iraq, too.

Gen. Patraeus is winning the war in Iraq, to the horror of the lunatic fringe, i.e. the Dems and the MSM.

I will enjoy watching both melt in pain, as I, and the country, are united in the country's interest.

"to fight back against the ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"to fight back against the ridiculous and baseless attacks coming from Democrats determined to destroy the President"

Which ones are you talking about? We know that Gone-zales lied under oath and that Bush is protecting him currently - but which "baseless" attacks have you so upset that you have gone feral?

Libs have no ethics, and Re... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Libs have no ethics, and Repubs have no balls. Cant understand why the GOP doesnt streetfight like the Dems, but then, they dont have the national media carrying water for them.

When Dems get around to finally being the party of honesty and ethics, then they can act like they are honest and ethical. Until then, anyone with a brain knows the Dems are all hypocrites.

Lorie,Please the ... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Lorie,

Please the last Republican President-Reagan didn't have near the media to contend with that Bush has had to cut through.

The media has changed and evolved. It's 24/7 news cycles now-and add to that fact that the big player CNN is more concerned with it's foreign audience and that revenue-just like Hollywood.

Plus once upon a time in Reagan's era it would have been considered gauche to show enemy propaganda beheadings, GIS getting shot in the head, and threats from our enemies getting broadcast directly to the American public.

Osama and Saddam have been granted access to the American public that would have made Breshnev, and Nikita Krushev drool.

Plus -the enemy has changed the rules and you barely get it. You barely get that Bush has had to go through absolutely catastrophic historical events the likes of which this relatively young country has never gone through before.

I'm glad Bush is finally ta... (Below threshold)
Syntax:

I'm glad Bush is finally taking a page from Clinton's politics book and fighting the good fight. Y'all didn't seem to whine too much about the Mainsream media tin-foil hat conspiracies between 1992 and 2000 did ya? ie: the $200 haircut that almost crashed planes. Total BS but your tin-foil hat conspiracy MSM ran the story anyways. How about that wonderful Special Prosecutor, Kenneth Starr? Spen $50 million tax payer dollars to convict the Clinton's in the MSM and the only evidence the guy came up with was a semen stained dress. A $50 million dollar semen stained dress. And how about the damn dirty "Liberal" Supreme Court aboloshing the Congressional "Special Prosecutor" privalege right after the 2000 elections after handing the election over to that damn dirty Liberal, George W. Bush? How "Liberal" of them. Blows that tin-foil hat conspiracy. And what about the list, and it is a large list of Republicans demanding accountability for this scandal. Attack the Dems and conveniently ignore the Repubs? Live on this planet much do ya?

November 7th, 2007!!! You're the minority now! The street fight for the past 6 years has shifted gears and you pussies better pucker up cause its gonna be a long one! Too bad you elected idiots. It makes things considerably easier when the best you had to offer was a spoiled-rotten, draft-dodging, pink-team pansy (AKA Bush). Boo hooo!

A.G.A.G. does not represent... (Below threshold)
Michael Evilcorn:

A.G.A.G. does not represent conservatism. I see no reason to save him. President Bush kindof supports conservatism; we need to support him for 18 more months.

Judiciary Committee ... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:


Judiciary Committee to Meet on Subpoenas for White House and Justice Department Officials

An announcement from the Judiciary Committee:

Conyers, Sànchez to Issue Subpoenas for White House Officials

WHEN: TOMORROW, March 21st, 10:15 am

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=147

I would be quite happy for ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I would be quite happy for Bush to push this and allow it to get to court. For too long he has feigned legal justification for his actions, and then done everything he could to get legal challenges thrown out. Or, he would give in at the last minute and then insist the challenge was then moot. You on the right think he's just a big pussy for giving in, but he knows the reason is because his "justification" would never hold up in the light of day. I applaud the intent to let the court decide. Then the American people will know with authority whether the law is being violated. But we all know that will never happen. Let's look at the update added to that post you cited:

Just like has happened a dozen times before, Bush will huff and puff and pound the table, and drag the confrontation out as long as possible, and then ... after having sustained the maximum possible political damage, he will then cave in to reality.

So Bush called the presser and told him to get bent, insisting that he's not about to forfeit executive privilege to serve the Democratic interest

Nice little fantasy you have there, Lorie. But it ignores sense and precedent, and shows a complete lack of awareness of the history of executive privilege. Notably, the SCOTUS told everyone from Thomas Jefferson and Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton to shove their executive privilege up their collective asses.

And for an additional bit of fun, you can go read what Republicans had to say about executive privilege when Clinton trotted it out.

Brian, it is you who are ig... (Below threshold)

Brian, it is you who are ignorant of the history and purpose of executive privilege.

I'm glad Bush is giving Leahy the bum's rush. Leaky Leahy should be in prison, not the Senate.

I recall having a debate on a message board some years back as to whether Leahy was a "blithering idiot" or a "drooling moron." Can't recall how it was resolved - both sides presented compelling arguments.

If the Dim leadership? woul... (Below threshold)
Buckeye:

If the Dim leadership? would pursue the fight against terrorism and terrorists as avidly as they pursue bringing down the President we would all be better served.

With any luck, in the run-u... (Below threshold)
kim:

With any luck, in the run-up to the election, Ropublicans may get the chance to have the conversation with themselves that the Dmocrats seem intent on denying to themselves.
==============================

Does make a person wonder:<... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Does make a person wonder:

For example, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, who approved the firing of one of the prosecutors, said in an e-mail that he hadn't read the attorney's job review to assess his competence. In other messages, officials defended and sometimes praised other prosecutors they were preparing to dump.
To tamp down controversy, McNulty and other high-ranking officials carefully crafted a response to possible criticism of the firings and secured the approval of the firings from then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers, according to the documents.
But the documents point to conflicting statements administration officials made in the months before the firings.
McNulty acknowledged to Justice Department officials two days before six of the firings that he still felt "a little skittish" because he hadn't looked at the job evaluations of Daniel Bogden, the U.S. attorney in Nevada, before his termination.
In a Feb. 1, 2007, memo, Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' then chief of staff, weighed how to deal with escalating congressional inquiries into the firings. Sampson informed colleagues that ousted Arkansas U.S. Attorney H.E. "Bud" Cummins had called to say he was asked to testify before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee. "I don't think he should," Sampson wrote. "How would he answer: `Did you resign voluntarily? Were you told why you were being asked to resign? Who told you? When did they tell you?'" The Bush administration used the new power as a means to fire U.S. attorneys who were not "loyal Bushies" -- a phrase used by Gonzales's top aide, D. Kyle Sampson, who has since resigned, in crafting the dismissal proposal -- and then to circumvent the Senate in the confirmation process.

McNulty set Gonzales up, bu... (Below threshold)
kim:

McNulty set Gonzales up, but overplayed his hand, and shot himself in the foot.
==============================

Why not have them testify u... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Why not have them testify under oath if there is nothing to hide? I mean, since they don't lie, they don't have anything to hide, etc., shouldn't be a problem.

"without the need for an oath" and without a transcript.
Justice Department emails appear to contradict Alberto Gonzales' congressional testimony, in which he said that the administration intended to seek Senate approval for every U.S. attorney appointed to replace those who had been fired. Recently released emails provide evidence that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and other high-ranking Justice Department officials gave false testimony to Congress, including testimony about the administration's intention to seek Senate approval for appointees replacing the fired U.S. attorneys and about the Justice Department officials' motivations in dismissing them.

This will play out through ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

This will play out through the remainder of GW's term. This will benefit the republicans because the dimmers have wasted so much time with this that they will look childish. ww

Mike, don't you see McNulty... (Below threshold)
kim:

Mike, don't you see McNulty's finger in the pie. You sure write about him.
================================

There are a great many unan... (Below threshold)
Kapow:

There are a great many unanswered questions in this whole affair. The only people who can answer these Qs are the members of the administration who are currently being shielded by "executive priviledge". Why shouldn't they be compelled to testify under oath? If there really wasn't any malfeasance, then what have they got to hide?

Kim, This has Nixon ... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Kim,
This has Nixon and Watergate written all over it. Nixon, as you may recall, lost his pissing match with Congress. And when the Congress subpoenaed the Clinton White House over any number of things and there was initial resistance, the Republicans screamed like banshees about obstruction of justice and partisan politics.
For an excellent backgrounder on how the Republicans viewed Bill Clinton's claims of executive privilege, read Glenn Greenwald's posting here. It includes this rather interesting cite from the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon (1974):
The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the court. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.

Mike:Why not h... (Below threshold)
marc:

Mike:

Why not have them testify under oath if there is nothing to hide? I mean, since they don't lie, they don't have anything to hide, etc., shouldn't be a problem.

Why?

Mike just one quick question: Do you know what the criminal penalty is for lying to Congress while not under oath?

When you discover the answer you will, if honest, realize dems whining about taking an oath is nothing more than political grandstanding.

Oh...then there is that little matter of being on TV. Gee...wonder why they want that?

"Why not have them testi... (Below threshold)
cmd:

"Why not have them testify under oath if there is nothing to hide?"

Because this has nothing to do with the truth. This is a show trial by Democrats to damage the President. This is an act of treason by the enemy. Bush should hold a press conference at noon today, firing every US attorney currently in office and then turning the podium over to Dick Cheney so he can repeat his "FU" to that seditious collaborator Leahy.

The Democrat party doesn't believe in terrorists. Their enemy is the GOP. So it's time to treat them like the enemy. Hang 'em all.

Heh, Felt kept his fingerpr... (Below threshold)
kim:

Heh, Felt kept his fingerprints off Watergate; McNulty left his all over this.

But nice try. Hope springs infernal in the BDS heart.
==================================

This is a vehicle for im... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

This is a vehicle for impeachment.

Just watch.

The Democrats will send subpoenas, Bush will resist them, and arguing that this violates the Constitution, Dem's will being the proceedings.

It's the end game.

In Nixon's case, their was ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

In Nixon's case, their was a crime being investigated. A felony. Almost solid evidence. With Clinton, same thing. There is nothing solid here, no crime. The SCOTUS will see this for what it is: Politics. Not crimes. ww

Mike, it looks like Bush ha... (Below threshold)
kim:

Mike, it looks like Bush has offered the 'in camera inspection' called for in your Supreme Court decision. The Dems don't want it 'in camera'; they want it 'on camera'.

They ought to pick their photo ops, better. Val with 'I don't know the meaning of covert', and Bill with 93 fired US Attorneys sort of make the Dems look ridiculous, however. What do they think we are? Dumb as journalists?
===========================

Posted by: drjohnI... (Below threshold)
marc:

Posted by: drjohn

I smell bovine scatology.

The end game would be the Supreme Court. At that point Bush complies with the ruling.

But is nice to see you remember your dreams upon waking, some people forget them a soon as the eyes open.

It is bluff, DrJ. As soon ... (Below threshold)
kim:

It is bluff, DrJ. As soon as the Dems figure out that the documents point out McNulty is the guilty party, they'll drop it. Bush already figured this out, but they had to go on with the bluff so as not to appear pusillanimous; but this was a failed coup against Gonzales, and don't you mistake it.
================================

Marc,No I don't know... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Marc,
No I don't know if there is a penalty for lying while not under oath. If there was one, shouldn't every damn one of all politicians be charged?

cmd,
Because this has nothing to do with the truth. If a honest poll was taken across the US, I just wonder what the answer would be. You may be correct on this, however, like Nixon, it wasn't so much the action, it was the coverup. And that is what is happening, and many many people, including some leading Republicans are included in that thinking. And your comment about "hang 'em all." is letting your emotion rule instead of the grey matter.

You are catching on. McNult... (Below threshold)
kim:

You are catching on. McNulty made it appear that Gonzales was covering up. But he wasn't; McNulty's the dirty one, here. Watch the record. And watch the Dems cave as they get through the documents.
================================

i'll be laughing when this ... (Below threshold)
nosheep:

i'll be laughing when this country ends up a police state and you're all crying about where YOUR particular freedom of choice has gone. haha. silly sheep, freedom is for smart people.

Your 'police state' is far ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Your 'police state' is far more likely with a party that believes more government is the solution to our problems.
====================

<a href="http://writ.news.f... (Below threshold)
marc:

5 years in a Federal pen Mike. And I believe that's the same for committing perjury while under oath.

So what's the bloviating Schumers point?

There is none other then a fishing expo looking to hang Rove, as the prime target and others.

This seems like a rather ha... (Below threshold)
tas:

This seems like a rather harsh reaction to the Democrats use of their oversight powers. Would you rather that no branch of government had oversight over the executive office?

"And watch the Dem... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"And watch the Dems cave as they get through the documents."

They will hiss , piss and moan and then a light will pop on in their heads. Yes, lets get Sandy Pants in hear, we'll just say he's coming to deliver Chinese and just throwing away the empty pizza boxes from lunch. HE HE no is smarter than us Dems He he he. (Intercom) ahem , FU Leahy , we heard every word you said. Ahh Damn!

"ordering his inferiors<... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

"ordering his inferiors"

Did I read that right? Did I actually read that some cocky, arrogant sob actually referred to anyone not considered as part of Bush's circle as "inferiors"?

And the rest of the world weeps for our plight.

Foolish stupid Americans.....to have had ancestors who understood what freedom meant and to have it all ruined in so short a time. Travesty.

So far the documents have s... (Below threshold)
fatusa:

So far the documents have shown:
"This administration decides to fire 8 US attorneys, for illegitimate reasons; because they refused to pursue baseless investigations; by slandering their names; and only after the Patriot Act allowed more freedoms in doing it under the radar. And they are surprised it's coming under great scrutiny?
And what did this administration then do? Immediately go into "lie your ass off" mode and began to renounce their complicity, lie about who orchestrated it and why and immediately say "this was not done for political reasons".

"F&%# you and the horse ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

"F&%# you and the horse you rode in on".
Ace

Why do Republicans hate America?

Afterall, the "you" is Dems and "the horse you rode in on" is the 2006 elections.

Bush should begin engaging in the most ruthless of political tit-for-tats, ordering his inferiors to not spend a dime of money for earmarked projects in Democratic districts, etc.
Ace

Oh, that will go over well for Repubs in the next election. That would guarantee Dems keep the House and Senate (most likely expand on the majority) and the President would most likely be easily carried with the Democratic tide.

"Wingnut talk tough, wingnut face consequences"

The Democrat party doesn't believe in terrorists. Their enemy is the GOP. So it's time to treat them like the enemy. Hang 'em all.
cmd

And they say it's the left that's "unhinged".

This will play out through the remainder of GW's term. This will benefit the republicans because the dimmers have wasted so much time with this that they will look childish.
WildWillie

This I actually do agree with. I think there is a story here that should be investigated by Congress, but they already voted to overturn the provision from the Patriot Act which allowed interim USAs stay on indefinitely. The rest is just scoring political points, which should be done so future Administrations don't try to do this again, but that can be done over the course of weeks to months.

And there can probably be some compromise between the Congress and White House. For instance, no cameras but do allow a transcript of the proceedings. There has to be some recorded history of what goes on to compare it to other documentation.

Bush, Rove, Gonzales and... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Bush, Rove, Gonzales and Co. should explain why the U.S. attorneys were dismissed by emphasizing the importance of the cases they were refusing to prosecute.
Dick Morris

That's what Bush should have done, he's right. But if all that is BS, which is why this is being investigated in the first place, then what do they fall back on when they're called on it by the USAs themselves? Do they insult and slander the USAs they appointed, call them liars in the national media, can they come up with performance evaluations that are not based on being a "loyal Bushie"? If not (as we have been seeing), then the Administration has nothing and all this tough talk just makes the blowback even worse.

After telling a bunc... (Below threshold)
fatusa:


After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys, the Bush administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt." The President intends to invoke "executive privilege," the same doctrine used by Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective (unsuccessful) attempts to resist subpoenas.

So what else is going on in the world today? This just takes everyone minds off everyday problems and lets them vent their penned up frustrations, right?

Folks, Bill fired 93 prosec... (Below threshold)
kim:

Folks, Bill fired 93 prosecutors to stop one prosecution. Dubya fired 8 in order to stop no prosecutions. I hope the Dems try to make a big deal of this. The American people will wonder why the Dems allow us to vote for President if he's not allowed to supervise members of his executive branch.
========================

The legislators, those who ... (Below threshold)
kim:

The legislators, those who make the laws under the people's direction, now want to limit the people's ability to have policy direction in the enforcement of the laws? Are they so fundamentally undemocratic to believe the people's only input to the rule of law is through the legislators? Sic semper tyrannus.
=======================

One of the remarkabl... (Below threshold)
fatusa:


One of the remarkable aspects of the U.S. attorney firings is that the Justice Department didn't select a group of mediocre prosecutors and then try to smear them as underperforming -- oh, no. They chose from among the most distinguished U.S. attorneys in the country (by the DoJ's own admission), and then announced to the world that they'd canned them for "performance related" issues.
And Seattle's John McKay. Here's Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales' right hand and the point man for the purge, writing about McKay in August, 2006: "re John, it's highly unlikely we could do better in Seattle."
Six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records."
And one other issue that might come into play here. If you look at the corruption investigations over the last two years, there's an odd pattern of pivotal investigators and prosecutors getting fortuitous promotions or offers of employment in the private sector at key moments. And the documents actually show DoJ officials brainstorming on the reasons that they'd fired the USAs.
One month before pleading guilty to felony corruption charges brought by US Attorney Carol Lam, Duke Cunningham signs on to one of those letters complaining about Carol Lam's lax immigration enforcement policies. Apparently Duke thought she was focusing too much on corruption too.

Let's be honest. Presidential advisors testify all the time. They don't have the same responsibilities vis a vis Congress as members of the executive departments. But they can and do testify. There's only one reason why you agree to 'talk' to Congress unsworn, in private and without a transcript: because you want to be able to lie or dodge questions in a way that's too embarrassing to do in public.

The current crop of democra... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The current crop of democraps have to be the most stupid in history. Whatever they try to force on the white house will come back and bite them on the ass if they ever get another president. Actually if President Bush was a 'childish' person like the democrats he can fix it so the next president cannot accomplish one thing.

Just listened to two minutes of Algore 'the weatherman', puked in the trash can and changed channels. Why didn't the republicans play the democrats game and turn their back on Algore as he speaks?

Lorie, keep the faith. We ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Lorie, keep the faith. We ain't done with Plame, yet. She has now named three characters in a scenario to explain the behesting of Joe; the upset junior officer, the fellow-worker who wandered by, and her supervisor. Surely these people have names. Inquiring minds want to know what they are, including Kit Bond of 'Show Me' Missouri.
==================

Bush I fired all the USAs ... (Below threshold)
Kapow:

Bush I fired all the USAs when he took office. So did Clinton. So did Bush II. That's NOT the issue here, and I think you know it, Kim.

I suggest you take a step back and look at this situation objectively. Politicising the USA's offices is serious. what if it was (is in the future) a Dem in the whitehouse doign the same thing? Read David Iglesias's Op-ed in the NYT today. Now, he might have an axe to grind, but don't forget that he (and the other 7) is a Republican and was appointed by Republicans.

I'm sorry but if it is OK f... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

I'm sorry but if it is OK for a new President to just come in to office and summarily fire every US Attorney, then it is OK for any President to summarily fire any one US Attorney at any time during his Presidency.

This is much ado about nothing. A made up scandal that the Dems want to blow up to smear the President and those who work for him.

Bush expressed sympa... (Below threshold)
fatusa:


Bush expressed sympathy for the purged prosecutors.
"I also want to say something to the U.S. attorneys who reside. I appreciate your service to the country. And while I strongly support the Attorney General's decision and am confident he acted appropriately, I regret these resignations turned into such a public spectacle....
"I'm sorry this, frankly, has bubbled to the surface the way it has, for the U.S. attorneys involved. I really am. These are -- I put them in there in the first place; they're decent people. They serve at our pleasure. And yet, now they're being held up into the scrutiny of all this, and it's just -- what I said in my comments, I meant about them. I appreciated their service, and I'm sorry that the situation has gotten to where it's got. But that's Washington, D.C. for you. You know, there's a lot of politics in this town."
It's striking when you think about it. The Bush administration decided these prosecutors weren't loyal enough, and were taking on politically-inconvenient cases, so it fired them without cause or explanation. Then the same administration dragged their names through the mud, accusing of them (falsely) of poor on-the-job performance.

And now Bush blames "Washington, D.C." for all the bad things that have happened to them? It's almost as if Bush was telling the prosecutors he fired, "Don't blame me; I just work here."

Go read Dick Morris's point... (Below threshold)
kim:

Go read Dick Morris's point, Kapow. It's in Lorie's update. It's my point, too, but he says it better. You antidemocratic authoritarian, you.
=========================

fatusa, look to McNulty. M... (Below threshold)
kim:

fatusa, look to McNulty. Many of the things you regret are at his door.
==============================

Oh I read it Kim, and I lov... (Below threshold)
Kapow:

Oh I read it Kim, and I loved this bit:

"When a U.S. attorney chooses to go light in prosecuting voter fraud and political corruption..."

1. The Voter fraud was investigated, and at least in Washington and New Mexico, they didn't have enough evidence to prosectue (See David Igelsias's article for one example). Evidence is important when prosecuting people, Kim, just becuase a Republican accuses someone of voter fruad doesn't mean they are automatically guilty. I know you wish it were that way, but we still have due process here in the USA, well jsut about anyway.

2. NOT prosecuting political corruption? Are you F-ing serious? That's EXACTLY the point with Carol Lam. She got canned for proescuting Cunningham and chasing the trail up way up to the top of the CIA (and beyond into the exectutive?).

But then I guess that's acknowedged to some degree:

"We consider who prosecutes whom and for what to be a question of public policy that should reflect the president's priorities and objectives."

Let's recap: Not enough evidence of voter fraud - hang 'em high! Massive corruption in Congress and the CIA - leave that alone, you should be concentrating on illegal immigration...


Still waiting for you're views on Iglesias's side of the story...

I don't know about New Mexi... (Below threshold)
kim:

I don't know about New Mexico, but thanks to Steve Sharkansky, I'm privy to the evidence McKay is trying to ignore. He's politically ambitious in a Democratic state.

I'm glad you acknowledge that public policy re: US Attorneys should reflect the President's priorities and objectives. How else is the Executive to carry out his sworn duty to enforce the laws?

Are you sure about Lam and Cunningham?
===============================

This donnybrook over the De... (Below threshold)
Mike:

This donnybrook over the Department of Justice is not really the issue. The issue is how much power does a president...in particular THIS president really have? This goes beyond partisan politics and veers into the fast lane of constitutionality. Mr. Bush may learn that he is not, after all, the commander-in-chief of the American people, but their servant. He may learn that Congress as an institution has its own interests and powers, and does not truck with the interference with those things any more than a president does.
And in the end, President Bush might learn that the 'just a piece of paper' constitution he swore before God to preserve and protect.....well, he may learn that it's NOT just a piece of paper.
Much was made long ago about the "selective tolerance" of the Left. For a time the Left WAS a potential danger to the republic. However, the pendulum has obviously swung the other way. I can find common ground with any conservative if the names Eisenhower, Goldwater, or Reagan are mentioned. You don't have to agree with someone's ideas to admire their personal decency, courage, and forthrightness.
If it is required to march in lockstep to a handful of self-chosen "leaders" then I'll have to decline. My family paid in blood over 60 years ago to stop that kind of bullshit"

Look, Kapow, at Sampson's 3... (Below threshold)
kim:

Look, Kapow, at Sampson's 3/2/05 email demonstrating that Lam was targetted for removal 3 months before the Cunningham scandal struck.

H/T Patterico.
================================

Mike, the Constitution plac... (Below threshold)
kim:

Mike, the Constitution places the Department of Justice under the control of the Executive Branch, and for a good reason. Your mission, should you choose to undertake it, it to discover that reason.

Actually, it's Mission Obvious. Just read the thread.
===============================

Actually, Mike, your family... (Below threshold)
kim:

Actually, Mike, your family ancestors would be appalled at the idea of Congress enforcing the laws. They thought Congress should make laws. They fought hard to keep the separation of powers that has allowed our democratic experiment such strength.
===========================

And they would be very curi... (Below threshold)
kim:

And they would be very curious what evil impulse has you thinking otherwise. Who educated you, anyway, Mike?
==========================

"That is an incredibly stup... (Below threshold)
Cecelia:

"That is an incredibly stupid question to ask so soon after the LIbby trial and the Plame testimony. The White House appears to have learned from the LIbby example that if enough administration officials are questioned long enough under oath, there are likely to be failings in memory that could result in a perjury charge. We just spent a considerable amount of time and money to prosecute a guy the jury even said should be pardoned."

This is, without a doubt, the most MORONIC argument I have ever seen. I hope if the next democrat president is accused of any wrong doing, we make sure his staff isn't under oath. They might forget something and get convicted of perjury.

Hell while we are at it we should just eliminate swearing in PERIOD! No American should ever have to swear an oath because obviously the judical system is so fucking broke that a jury of 12 will be convinced you are guilty of perjury when clearly you just forgot something.

You are right Lorie, the whole under oath thing is outdated.

Of course if you are not under oath you can lie with impunity but who the fuck cares about that.

Someone please smack Lorie. I can't deal with the stupidity.

They fought hard to keep... (Below threshold)
Clay:

They fought hard to keep the separation of powers that has allowed our democratic experiment such strength.

Agree with the former, but take exception to the latter. America is not an experiment. It was tried and tested in the laboratories of Athens and Rome. The founding fathers were well-versed in Horace, Virgil, and Homer. Their worldview was steeped in Plato's 'Republic'. The Constitution is not a 'living' document, but a testament to the validity of Western culture. The nihilist would have us believe that America is an experiment, but they display their ignorance of this country's foundation.

Steve Sharkansky? One examp... (Below threshold)
Kapow:

Steve Sharkansky? One example doesn't make a prosecution I'm afraid Kim. Washington has a reputation as a liberal state but how about this gem from the Seattle Times:

"Republican activists were furious because they felt that you had a Republican secretary of state [Sam Reed], a Republican county prosecutor in Norm Maleng and a Republican U.S. attorney, but still they saw the governorship slipping away, and they were just angry," [Republican Party Chairman Chris] Vance said.

So did McKay get fired for not prosecuting alledged voter fraud, or because he wasn't a team player who was willing to bend the rules to give his side an advantage? Well McKay said he wasn't going to "drag innocent people in front of a grand jury." So, I guess that goes some way to answering the question.

Am I sure about Lam and Cunningham? Well, obviously we don't know the full story there, but given the pattern we're seeing, I'd say it warrants some further investigation. If they did nothing wrong, they ain't got nothing to hide, right?

I wanted to quote some of Iglesias's OpEd but the Tiems site seems to be playing silly buggers at the moment. So there's more coming soon...

Steve Sharkansky? One examp... (Below threshold)
Kapow:

Steve Sharkansky? One example doesn't make a prosecution I'm afraid Kim. Washington has a reputation as a liberal state but how about this gem from the Seattle Times:

"Republican activists were furious because they felt that you had a Republican secretary of state [Sam Reed], a Republican county prosecutor in Norm Maleng and a Republican U.S. attorney, but still they saw the governorship slipping away, and they were just angry," [Republican Party Chairman Chris] Vance said.

So did McKay get fired for not prosecuting alledged voter fraud, or because he wasn't a team player who was willing to bend the rules to give his side an advantage? Well McKay said he wasn't going to "drag innocent people in front of a grand jury." So, I guess that goes some way to answering the question.

Am I sure about Lam and Cunningham? Well, obviously we don't know the full story there, but given the pattern we're seeing, I'd say it warrants some further investigation. If they did nothing wrong, they ain't got nothing to hide, right?

I wanted to quote some of Iglesias's OpEd but the Tiems site seems to be playing silly buggers at the moment. So there's more coming soon...

I'm just saying.... (Below threshold)
Clay:

I'm just saying.

How confused you are? Do o... (Below threshold)
kim:

How confused you are? Do only guilty people get dragged in front of a Grand Jury? No, people with relevant information do.

McKay had a case. He chose not to prosecute it, and the administration chooses not let him continue in his job. Read Steve Sharkansky's blog.

Curious, no, that two of the states with the most egregious voter fraud recently, are New Mexico, and Washington? Do you favor voter fraud?

You don't know about Lam and Cunningham? I just told you; you've been lied to about the reasons she was let go. Go read Patterico's Pontifications.
===============================

Oh, and I'm not calling you... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Oh, and I'm not calling you a nihilist, Kim. I rather admire your depth and breadth of knowledge. I just had a compelling need to correct your poor choice of words.

Carry on. On topic, of course.

Sorry for the departure.

Clay, I'm just saying there... (Below threshold)
kim:

Clay, I'm just saying there's never been a human born who doesn't experiment with his own and others' governance. Our democratic experiment has lasted longer than the ones you reference because it has different conditons than those.
============================

I'll agree it wasn't a comp... (Below threshold)
kim:

I'll agree it wasn't a completely novel experiment, and I thank you for tightening up my language, but not as much as I thank you for tightening up my thinking.
============================

Yes Kim, innocent people ge... (Below threshold)
Kapow:

Yes Kim, innocent people get called before a grand jury too. Well done. I was quoting McKay about the grand jury, and that's not what he meant. Are you always that literal?

He's a prosecutor, you aren't. He made a decision - presumably based on the facts and evidence, not hearsay and inuendo - not to persue the issue (which as a prosecutor, is his job) There's been alot of bogus voter fraud accusations thrown around by Republican operatives and almost none of them have stood up to scrutiny. I say kudos to McKay for not being sucked in. Of course that wasn't the way his politcal superiors saw it, and hence he got the flick.

So, it seems like you're the one that's into voter fraud, not me.

Like it or not, politicians are not supposed to be leaning of USAs like this. It's wrong - Domenici and Wilson know it's wrong, which is why they've been at such pains to pretend they didn't think they were doing it.

Finally, I would remind you that if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be screaming bloody murder. Or am I worng about that too?

Sorry I missed your post ab... (Below threshold)
Kapow:

Sorry I missed your post about Patterico and Lam

I'll take your word for it on the email raising the immigration issue prior to the summer of 2005 (when the cunningham invetigation got started) - though I couldn't find it on patterico. One email isn't going to cut it though, I'm afraid.

The real uptick in complaints starts in may 2006 - when the links to Foggo at the CIA came out (and Cunningham resigned, I think). And who was complaining so vociferously about Lam? Darell Issa, one of Cunningham's closest allies. Now, it all may just be a coincidence, sure. And I conceded that I don't (and nor does anyone else) know the full story here. However, it seems to me, this warrants further investigation. And a full investigation requires that all and any people involved testify.

Or do you think we should we just sweep this under the rug?

kim,If the voter fra... (Below threshold)
Rance:

kim,
If the voter fraud in New Mexico was so "egregious", it should have been easy for the USAs to make a case. They couldn't. They were Republicans, so they weren't protecting their own, they couldn't put together a solid case.

Or does "egregious" just mean most squawking because the races were closer there?

Lorie's update: "The Whi... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Lorie's update: "The White House appears to have learned from the Libby example that if enough administration officials are questioned long enough under oath, there are likely to be failings in memory that could result in a perjury charge."

Translation from Conservo-spin to English --- If they are questioned they will lie, and eventually be caught in their lie.

Lorie, as usual you demonst... (Below threshold)
fea nicks:

Lorie, as usual you demonstrate that you don't give a flying f**k about law or the rule of law when it comes to defending anything that a Repusslican does.

There is plenty of smoke in this Bush/US attorney firing issue.

If Bush and the slime he has drug into the White House have nothing to hide, let them testify publicly under oath.

Bush was elected to do the American peoples' work and has no "excutive privilege" to conduct underhanded activities in the dark, hidden from the public's knowledge.

If Bush was above board in his actions, then let those actions see the light of day. Bush's efforts to hide and protect the misdeeds of Bimbo Miers and his Rove hog just reflect how much more that something likely was done that well may be illegal, if not unethical, at least.

Repusslicans like you Lorie have no regard for the law when it comes to what your vaunted leaders do.

fea nicks,Let them t... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

fea nicks,
Let them testify publicly in court then, if they are so crooked. I have seen enough Democrats using these congressional hearings not as fact finding vehicles, but rather as excuses for them to spew their own baseless conspiracy theories, barely allowing the "witnesses" to speak that I have no respect for them whatsoever. I have plenty of respect for the law and rule of law, but not one ounce for the circus-like hearings I saw last week. The way Victoria Toensing was treated, alone, is reason enough to not send anyone else in front of that farce of a congressional committee.

That's all well and ... (Below threshold)
Mike:


That's all well and good, but perhaps this time President Bush will NOT be the decider-in-chief. Perhaps this will be a test of the Supreme Court, as that is where any constitutional confrontation is going to wind up. Bush says this is to protect presidents in the future; that aides will not give good advice if they think they could be hauled before a Congressional committee. This is as vacuous an argument as Dennis Hastert saying the FBI did not have the constitutional authority to seize the records of the crook William Jefferson of Louisiana.
After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys, the Bush administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness.".
President Bush used 5 keywords, yesterday, that were strategically repeated with the goal of shifting the debate over the firing of Federal Attorneys by Alberto Gonzales away from talk of willful deceit of Congress and loyalty over law, to a more benign discussion of "resignations" and "incomplete" "explanations." Moreover, President Bush tried to force the word "fishing" into the debate to convince the public that Congress' attempt to find the truth about what happened is an attempt to restore honesty and integrity to government, but simply a partisan attack.

Translation from Conser... (Below threshold)
marc:

Translation from Conservo-spin to English --- If they are questioned they will lie, and eventually be caught in their lie. Posted by: Lee at March 21, 2007 01:59 PM

Lee are we to believe you can translate "conservo-spin", a de facto "foreign Language," when you have so much trouble with some of the simplest English words.

It's amazing. You can smack... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

It's amazing. You can smack liberals in the face all days with the balls of reality and it has no affect whatsoever.

Those people CAN be dismissed for ANY reason- political or not.

The Saturday Night Massacre did not stop Watergate, did it?

This is another George Mitchell moment: "There is no evidence of wrongdoing, and that is why we must investigate."

Kind of violates everything this country holds dear- but then these are liberals.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy