Letters to the Editor
-
Cut Them Some Slack
From 2000-2006 the Bush Administration did not have to field any questions from Congress. Their answers to the first wave of questions may be the product of shock.
It can be tossed out anyhow. No one read them their rights.
-
Top Aide to Gonzales has resigned
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070313/pl_nm/usa_congress_prosecutors_dc
-
Where is the URL?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070313/pl_nm/usa_congress_prosecutors_dc
-
Why did Congress accept so much of it?
This is what has puzzled me. I understand party loyalty goes a long, long way among Republicans post Reagan and especially post 9-11. But one thing I never thought I'd see from veteran Senators was a complete lack of self-esteem.
The administration's open contempt for Congress has been no secret to anyone, and most certainly not to its members. Just because they treated the Democrats worse isn't sufficient for me to understand why almost every single Republican member of congress shut their mouths and bent over and took it.
People talk about spineless Democrats, and fair enough, but what about, at a minimum, the committe chairs who actually had the power to stand up for themeselves and meekly refused to use it?
-
Again and again
Forgive me for saying this yet again, but Iran-Contra been sticking in my craw for 20 years. If Iran-Contra had been appropriately investigated, prosecuted and punished, there would be no George W. Bush administration today!
And this is why it is so damned important to investigate, prosecute and punish the current crop of miscreants (some of whom are the very same miscreants) or these outrages will keep happening again and again. Never forget, never let your elected representatives forget, and never let the media forget. We as a nation can't keep bouncing back from these misadventures indefinitely; each time we draw closer to the precipice.
-
Ramifications
GG: Congress is composed of the representatives of the American people, and when executive branch officials lie to Congress, they are lying to the country.
I wish the average American citizen would recognize that fact. I think sometimes disgust for politicians in general mutes the outrage we should feel when it is quite obvious to everyone that some "misleading" has occured. If people knew about the practical effects of these lies, I think they would be more upset about it, but when the way it's reported makes it sound like it's just more political gamesmanship, they tune it out.
-
Same cast of characters
As has been posted here & elsewhere the same cast of characters & enablers was behind Iran/Contra & the current Bush cabal. Cheney wrote in his response to the majority report on Iran/Contra that Reagan was not bound by laws prohibiting aid to the contras. It's the same ethos behind the unitary executive theory. And it's not been a secret.
-
And yet...
... I do not think this kind of thing is happening merely because modern conservatism thinks it is above the law. I think that the Bush Administration pretty much proves that modern conservatism thinks it is the law.
So whatever it's leading practitioners decide to do, regardless of what's on the books, that is the new law. Just for them of course; others may find the FBI at the door if they try the same thing.
The most startling thing to me about this comment is that it is not snark. It actually seems to be a principle of modern conservativism.
-
The Spin We're In
Top 3 stories at drudgereport.com as of 1:45 ET.
1. "Chief of staff of US attorney general quits."
2. "Bush White House Mulled Firing All Prosecutors."
3. "FLASHBACK: Clinton White House Fired All Prosecutors."http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012993.php
But let's address why [the 1993 story] is nothing but a smokescreen to hide the [2006] criminal conduct at the Justice Department.
First, we now know -- or at least the White House is trying to tell us -- that they considered firing all the US Attorneys at the beginning of Bush's second term. That would have been unprecedented but not an abuse of power in itself. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired and the fact that the White House intended to replace them with US Attorneys not confirmed by the senate. We now have abundant evidence that they were fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively going after Republicans. (Remember, Carol Lam is still the big story here.) We also now know that the top leadership of the Justice Department lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took place. As an added bonus we know the whole plan was hatched at the White House with the direct involvement of the president.
-- Josh MarshallThe authority to fire U.S. attorneys isn't the issue.
Gonzales slavishly followed Rove's orders, and lied about it.
It's the cover-up, stupid.
BUT DRUDGE RULES OUR WORLD.
-
Gonzo presser scheduled for right NOW
Sorry, no link...
And nit: They subvert the entire constitutional order by preventing the American people from exercising overisight over the executive branch through their representatives in Congress
oversight
-
Can Gonzalez be Disbarred?
Given that Gonzalez has indisputably lied under oath to Congress--a felony, as Glenn has underscored--cannot Gonzalez simply be disbarred? That would sort of make moot whether Gonzalez will be willing to resign. (After all, the m.o. of this administration has been largely one of "fuck 'em if they don't like what we give them!", so Gonzalez may simply stand firm. Look at Robert Mueller at the F.B.I.; he has "apologized" and said he's "responsible"(sic) for the investigatory violations of the Patriot Act by the agency, and yet...he's still there.)
If Gonzalez were to be disbarred, he would not be ABLE to continue to serve as A.G., would he?
-
criminal behavior is justified
They subvert the entire constitutional order by preventing the American people from exercising overisight over the executive branch through their representatives in Congress, and it turns the President into an unchecked, unaccountable ruler.
Cheney made his contempt for oversight and the law clear back during Iran-Contra too. He refused to sign a bi-partisan report condemning the White House for it’s “disdain of the law” and instead issued his own report condemning the majority of Congress for trying to pass a law “usurping Presidential Power.”
From Cheney’s perspective then, there wouldn’t have been any testimony before Congress at all, and no reason to lie, since his view of the presidency was one empowered to bypass laws about foreign policy.
And we’ve now reached the point where that view seems to apply to domestic policy too. Lying is justified to protect the Presidency (or even the approval ratings of the President), because he’s the Commander in Chief in a time of war, and if his image is damaged it hurts the troops (or at least this is their thinking).
And it is that type of thinking (a complete contempt for the law) that justifies all kinds of criminal behavior.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/11/26/hail_to_the_chief/