Letters to the Editor
-
Right MAV
I agree that this issue is not the worst thing that the Bush Administration has ever done, and they may well not have done anything legally wrong in firing political appointments for no reason.
Since that's the case, what are they afraid of? Why is the White House afraid to put Rove under oath in public? They could certainly work out a deal that Rove would only answer questions specific to this case.
The fact that they are unwilling to put anyone under oath in this case says two things:
1. Anything that the White House says without being under oath is obfuscated so much that they would open themselves to perjury if under oath.
2. The White House fears allowing officials to be questioned under oath on a relatively minor problem, because they absolutely cannot have them be under oath on more major problems (run up to war, torture, trampling on peoples' rights, etc).
In either case, what does it say about the White House?
-
Cheney goes back to the hospital to have his clot checked: Is it time for Rove to dump the problematic VP?
Yesterday, Cheney had Navy surgeons take another look at his bum leg. "The blood clot, or deep venous thrombosis, was discovered when the 66-year old Cheney went for an examination after experiencing ``mild discomfort' in the leg."
Oye como va:
Cheney resigns due to declining health, gets the Medal of Freedom, dampens any further passion for investigations by the Senate judiciary committee, writes a crappy book and makes $20 million, Halliburton stock comes out of blind trust (an estimated $100 million), he goes on the Washington Speakers Bureau hot list and makes $50k a pop for delivering sarcastic, hyper-patriotic diatribes to adoring fans at endless banquets and conventions, retires to his newly-built fortress/retirement mansion on Maryland's Eastern Shore, forever guarded by U.S. Secret Service agents at taxpayer's expense.
And that's not even the best part.
Bush makes an interim appointment of a new vice president to ride out the last months of his term. The interim vice president would probably be Condolezza Rice, who would then be in perfect position to run for President. She could spend the last 20 months of the Bush administration campaigning from a position of power, in the public eye every day, flying around the country in Air Force II for free at taxpayer's expense, and get the bully pulpit that goes with the office of VP.
-
Yellow Dog
Someone actually said, "We don't do subpoenas" because we're Democrats?
No. We do subpoenas because we follow the rule of law. Someone ought to remind that writer about the constitution, and oaths our politicians take to protect, defend, and uphold it.
These agents of deception in the White House have done all but burn the Constitution in Effigy as they strip the rights of the American people.
Let em dangle in the breeze for awhile...see how they like it.
-
Who needs an oath?
Only those who are ready to tell the truth anyway. The liars around the White House don't even know what the truth is. That is why they should be excused from taking an oath as per the superior liars in the adminstration and so called legal advisors to the top liar of them all, the Decider, or I am the President, King George the turd.
-
It's an Issue Because ...
ousting U.S. Attorneys "mid-term" is extremely rare, "Bob", so why eight and why now? Oh dear, you don't suppose it had anything to do with that last-minute addition to the Patriot Act expansion that said the ATTORNEY GENERAL could decide on who their replacements would be? In the past, Bob, only a Federal Circuit Court judge could name replacement U.S. Attorneys and those would only be interim appointments for terms not to exceed 120 days. Permanent replacements would then have to be named and those replacements would have to be evaluated and confirmed by the Senate. The replacements for these U.S. Attorneys wouldn't have to be evaluated and confirmed by anybody and their terms would be indefinite, not temporary. Ostensibly that provision was added to the Patriot Act in case terrorists started blowing up Federal prosecutors. Well, call me cynical, Bob, but I think it's much more likely that that provision was added so that the White House could get rid of U.S. Attorneys who put their oath of office ahead of politics.
Now maybe YOU don't think Congress should be investigating this, Bob, and you've already said that you think the president should be able to "hire or fire them, at will, for any reason he deems appropriate" (and, presumably, circumvent Senate confirmation when he picks their replacements) but if that's the way the White House is going to operate then, doggone it, that sounds a lot more like a fascist regime than an American presidency, dontcha think? George Bush is under the impression that he's accountable to no one and for the last 6 years that's just how it's been. Surely you don't have a problem with him being "reminded" that HE serves at the pleasure of the American people, do you? And would now be a good time to mention that a lot of us think "executive privilege" has no place in a conversation about the possibility of Federal prosecutors being pressured to go after political opponents? Richard Nixon had some strong ideas about "executive privilege" too and we all know how THAT went.
I know how unsettling all this must be to you, Bob. And I know what you're thinking and you're absolutely right, none of this would be happening if the Republicans hadn't blown it by losing their majority last November. Who knows, maybe if those damned 8 fired prosecutors had just been willing to play along when they were asked to, it would be just like the good ol' days ... George Bush would be doing whatever he damn well pleases and Congress would be busy looking for more ways to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Welcome to the Democrats' idea of the good ol' days, Bob.
-
The shoe is on the other foot?
I can't believe I am about to paraphrase BushCo but here goes...
If you have nothing to hide why should you be afraid to testify under oath in front of Congress and the people you work for?