Democrats & Liberals Archives

A new White House cover-up: Log-gate

The White House doesn’t want you, the American Public, to know who visits the White House and is now going to extreme measures to hide the White House visitor logs to cover their tracks.

According to published reports, (link) the White House and the Secret Service signed an agreement to withhold the visitor logs of the White House. They did this shortly after the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal was hot and in the presses.

The White House declared that the visitor logs, which for years were the property of the Secret Service and thereby the property of the American Public, were now, Presidential records.

The funny thing is that we, the American public, never heard about this 'memorandum' before. We never heard about how, one day visitor logs are a part of the public record and the next day they are the property of the Presidential papers and out of public view.

We may never have heard about this ruling, if it hadn't been for other public records, namely court records. In court records, the counsel for the Vice President used this memo as the basis for fighting the release of Cheney's visitor's logs and thereby informing the American public that the visitor logs have been hidden from view.

These actions are a blatant disregard for our open democracy. For these action are completely and utterly indefensible. With other violations of civil liberties, where the White House justified their use of reading email, listening to phone conversations and delving into the health records of its citizens by claiming their actions were for National Security. The action to remove visitor logs from public view is to cover-up a corrupt White House.

This action is no different that the when the Nixon administration tried to cover up Watergate.

It's time, America; impeachment of this administration should begin immediately.

Posted by john trevisani at January 7, 2007 3:46 PM
Comments
Comment #201722

Interesting. I recall just a few years ago, when Clinton was President and the Republicans in Congress were impeaching him over the Lewinsky business, they not only asked for and received the entire visitor logs, but also had the Secret Service agents on duty testify under oath about who came and went and what they talked about.

Posted by: bobo at January 6, 2007 9:38 AM
Comment #201729

But..but..but.. doesnt this really protect the American people from those nasty islamofascist bent on destroying this Country? Oh ..no..no..no I know it (insert yout own line of crap here)

Posted by: j2t2 at January 6, 2007 12:03 PM
Comment #201732


The Administration has no other option. They are being accosted by enemy’s both foreign and domestic. They have elevated corruption to a crude art form. The Whitehouse has become a revolving door for fugatives, felons and frukups. Now they have corrupted the Secret Service. Perhaps we should give all the Secret Service agents working to protect administration officials an extended vacation.

Posted by: jlw at January 6, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #201921

I personally think all of every nature regarding any elected individual should be public record and publicly displayed.

If you are a servant of public, paid with public money, and utilizing public resources, then it only makes sense that everything related to your time, your money, and your resources be public.

Any one who says there as good as these politicians claim to be shouldn’t have anything to hide.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 7, 2007 5:56 PM
Comment #201924

Bryan:
You make a very good point. i’ve read many times that some people are okay with the government snooping in their snail mail and email and listening to their phone calls because they claim “i’ve got nothing to hide.”

i wonder what those very same people are saying about the White House ‘hiding’ their visitor logs.

Posted by: john trevisani at January 7, 2007 6:34 PM
Comment #201938

Hey, guys, I have the scoop on the worst fundraising scandal in history, and the time lines of those who actually visited the White House.

Even in Washington, logs can’t be hidden forever. Tell all your friends about this one!

Go to:

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/scandal/inside/cron.html

It’s pretty juicy stuff!! Not only does it mention Americans, like Abramoff, that illegally raised funds, but also entities outside of the United States.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 7, 2007 8:11 PM
Comment #201939

John,

Good article. I think it’s kind of funny, in the same way that choking on your own spit is funny, that something like this behavior from Bush & Co. hardly causes me to even raise an eyebrow anymore.

I remember being outraged when I first learned of the Bush administration subverting FISA law. I remember being outraged when I began to learn that Bush & Co. outright lied about some of the intel leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

Now, news of secrecy to cover up possible indescretions hardly rates a “blip” on the radar. IMO that is sad. I still care, I’m just no longer surprised.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 7, 2007 8:25 PM
Comment #201941

JD,

So do you have anything beyond the 90’s?

Posted by: KansasDem at January 7, 2007 8:33 PM
Comment #201975

Oh Lord, another scandal. As one of those guys who has no problems with the government spying on me as I have nothing to hide, I have to admit to john trevisani that there’s no defense for this. While the comings and goings of certain people might reasonably need to be concealed for security purposes, making the White House visitor logs off limits and part of Presidential Papers is an outrage and completely indefensible. I wasn’t particuarly outraged byt the warrantless wiretapping, but this is different and makes no sense to me except to be a rather blatant attempt at a cover-up of damaging guests. What a crock.

Posted by: 1LT B at January 8, 2007 2:55 AM
Comment #201999

As one of those guys who has no problems with the government spying on me as I have nothing to hide—-LT

Ummm, what’s you social security number and bank account numbers? And, by the way; the guy who left his paper in the subway, and you picked it up to read, well he was on the watch list and although he’s a US citizen his 1st cousin was in a protest in Islamabad then called the paper guy to say happy birthday. He’s now in Belarussia having fun on our dime. And since the paper swap was clearly a drop now all your phone calls are being listened to and that surprise party for your girl friends birthday is being attended by an FBI agent to get pictures of who else is in on the plot. Be prepared for an interrogation, especially harsh since (1) you’re in the service and (2) Habeous Corpus is no longer in effect and (3) their camera in your shower identified some behavior the GOP feels is immoral.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 8, 2007 10:15 AM
Comment #202007

1LT B-
You ought to read Worse Than Watergate by John Dean. This is not the first time this President has tried to hide the truth about what he’s done, said, and considered in office.

He did the same concealment with his gubernatorial papers, despite state law requiring that they be opened to the public immediately. He’s been merciless about unauthorized leaks, and has made many things classified secrets despite the fact that the information wasn’t that sensitive.

Congress, when it asked to look at who attended Bush’s energy conference early in his administration, was effectively blocked. Oversight has suffered seriously under this president, and the Congresses under the Republicans let this happen.

Here’s my take: Bush likes to do a lot of things that he doesn’t want people to know about, things that he feels the average American would react adversely to. He doesn’t trust that there might be some wisdom, some reason behind the issues they might have. He’s never really wanted anything but our approval. He has not wanted our opinion. He believes he knows what’s best for America, and the rest of us don’t. As much as he tries to portray himself as a regular Joe, my experience of Bush has been that he’s quite a bit of an elitist.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 8, 2007 11:12 AM
Comment #202010

Dave,

Good point. =)

I don’t have a problem with being spied on. I have room mates work in an office in a community college and spend the majority of free time out dancing.

It wouldn’t be hard to spy on me as there is always some one next to me. Even in the shower the girly friend is washing my back.

Go ahead and film, spy, drop in on me.

It would just be a matter of opening the door saying “Sup, I am here to stalk you like an ex-girlfriend!”, and I would be like sure, but your putting forth on the petro.

Then again, I am not a public servant, in public domain, being paid with public money…

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 8, 2007 11:36 AM
Comment #202014

A Bush does not leave a paper trail

The papers of Prescott Bush about his help for the Nazis were burned to”save space” in the national archives. Bush 2 learned to cover up on daddy’s knee.

Posted by: BillS at January 8, 2007 12:00 PM
Comment #202030
You ought to read Worse Than Watergate by John Dean. This is not the first time this President has tried to hide the truth about what he’s done, said, and considered in office.

Now there’s a real unbiased view of things. And everyone knows that John ‘I Hate All Republicans’ Dean is the most unbiased guy in DC.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 8, 2007 1:05 PM
Comment #202032


Brian AJ: If the government is watching or stalking you, even if you have nothing to hide, your paying for it come tax time.

Posted by: jlw at January 8, 2007 1:19 PM
Comment #202035

Ron Brown-
Dean brings up factual concerns with Bush’s behavior, and you bring up bias. How about addressing what’s going on here, rather than starting with what you think we all should think about it?

Dean is a Republican, but he’s a Republican who like many others has seen the party go from it’s conservative roots of reducing government, reducing its intrusion in our lives, and maintaining fiscal discipline to what it’s become today. His complaints, basically, mirror that of many Republicans and Conservatives nowadays.

With you claiming to be an independent, it’s odd that you find it so reprehensible that Dean has broken ranks with Republicans over the perceived increase in non-conservative behavior saturating the GOP.

But of course, the doctrine goes, perceived bias must be more important than the facts.

This is precisely what’s hobbled any decent rightwing reform: bias has become more important to Republicans and others on the right than the nature of the facts. They can’t look at the facts with an unbiased eye, simply accepting them, and deciding what to do with them. They have to rationalize or ignore it in a way apologetic to the right and its leadership, because disloyalty has become the greater sin than intellectual or factual dishonesty.

Apologetics flatters what people believe about their party, rather than making them aware of it, and compelling them to do something. Media Bias, therefore, becomes the opiate of the right, dulling them to the kind of misdeeds, corruption, and deviation from their ideals that ended up losing them power.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 8, 2007 1:31 PM
Comment #202041

Come on Stephen Daugherty,

Where were you when Clinton was having coffees and sleepovers in the White House and Janet Reno, who was supposed to be looking out for the American people, refused to investigate indiscretions though she knew that the law had been broken and even White House lawyers were sending the President and Vice President memos telling them that it was illegal?

John Huang and others make Jack Abramoff look petty.

As far as hidden documents,, I certainly remember some turning up in Hillary Clinton’s office, and those had been under subpeona for several years. Now she is the front runner for the Democratic Party in ‘08. Typical!!

How about the lavish gifts that Clinton’s own Secretary took from Monica Lewinsky and hid under her own bed during the Starr investigation?

Where were you when Clinton had underlings go through the FBI files of over 300 people without having authorization to do so?

Perhaps, you didn’t hear of Clinton’s database collections of not only listed, but unlisted phone numbers of millions of Americans, their political affiliations, and other private information through an Arkansas company also connected to Riady and John Huang who were funneling money to the Clinton Administration from Indonesia.

At least this stuff is not speculation. If Bush has done something wrong, I’m sure it will be found out, unlike Clinton, who nobody seemed to want investigated!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 8, 2007 2:18 PM
Comment #202047
unlike Clinton, who nobody seemed to want investigated!…Posted by: JD at January 8, 2007 02:18 PM
I still don’t get it. Are we supposed to laugh or just wonder if Prozac really is the solution…?…

x

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 8, 2007 3:00 PM
Comment #202053


JD:

Since you can produce the evidence on Clinton, why not produce a list of evidence against Bush. If you can’t, it must be because Bush has done nothing wrong or perhaps he is smarter than Clinton, ay.

Ask yourself this, why isn’t the Bush justice dept. prosecuting the Clinton administration instead of Republican Congressmen and petty little thieves like Abramoff? With all that evidence, Gonzalas should be able to slam dunk the Clinton administration.

If Clinton were as smart as Bush, he would have executive ordered all that evidence and everyone in America would not know that Clinton should be in prison, right.

Posted by: jlw at January 8, 2007 3:12 PM
Comment #202055

jlw,

“If the government is watching or stalking you, even if you have nothing to hide, your paying for it come tax time.”

I have no problem with the taxes I pay.

The money from taxes pay for the roads I drive on, the education I am getting, the police that protect me, the military that is there to prevent other countries from taking things from me, and many other wonderful little things that I appreciate.

The only upset I have with the taxes I pay, is that I truely and completely believe that I could do more with less, on the grounds that I do more then the average American with less than the average American.

I also believe that some government offials are not working in my best interest, but that will never change, that is no different than complaining about the rain.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 8, 2007 3:26 PM
Comment #202066

The Bush Justice Dept. is not investigating Clinton because present Presidents do not investigate former ones. That is Congress’s role of oversight.

Excuse me, but were you not watching during the Clinton Administration?

Clinton used every Executive privilege in the book to keep investigators from finding out who in his Administration knew about his cover-up. This is why Kenneth Starr had so much difficulty, and took so much time to investigate. Though the Paula Jones event was well-known early in Clinton’s first term, the investigation did not conclude to impeachment until just before the election prior to his last two years in office. That’s quite a lot of stone-walling, and using of Executive privilege if you ask me! In fact, Paula Jones’ case had already been settled by the time Starr concluded his findings of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice in the Paula Jones case. It, by the way, was not the “Monica Lewinsky” case or scandal. It was the Civil lawsuit and the Perjury and Obstruction of Justice in her lawsuit that brought upon the Impeachment of the President. Just thought I would make that clear!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 8, 2007 4:06 PM
Comment #202073

Actually, if Clinton had been pursued by the Republicans, Janet Reno would probably have not investigated the issue at all. A judge actually had to rule that the civil lawsuit could go on. In fact, Bill Clinton claimed that he was too busy being President to testify at a civil lawsuit. It would have to wait until he left office. He actually never testified in court to my knowledge. Instead, everything was taped. You may remember that famous taped line shown on TV, “it all depends upon what your definition of is … is!”

What a brilliant President we had then, right?

Instead the lawsuit was from outside the government; a private citizen accusing the President of the United States of Sexual Harassment. Janet Reno had no choice but to order a special prosecutor to investigate the matter.

However, when it came to possible campaign finance laws being broken by both President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, (coffees, sleepovers, inappropriate fundraising in the White House offices, etc. etc. etc.), no special prosecutors were appointed even though it was requested by the Republican Congress, and the Press had pretty detailed records of what was going on. In a Time Magazine article of an interview of George Stephanopoulis after he had left the White House during Clinton’s second term, he admitted to all the fundraising that was going on there.

Yet, still no investigations. Janet Reno was some protector of the people wasn’t she?

At least in this White House Ashcroft’s Justice Dept. was instructed to investigate Abramoff, even though the President knew there were connections to the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. This hurt the Republicans more, because they were the Party in power. It certainly didn’t hurt Democrat Harry Reid who had ties to Abramoff, now did it? He is now the Senate majority leader!

If I were President Bush, and the Democrats had run their campaign with words like impeachment, Hitler, etc., I would be circling the wagons, too. Even the least look of impropriety is going to be used by the Democrats to go after Bush, whether he has done anything wrong or not. That is why all of this speculation is just that, speculation.

However, when we knew Clinton / Gore had broken the law, no one did anything!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 8, 2007 4:53 PM
Comment #202076

JD-
I would not bring up a tu quoque defense for Bush, if I were you. Even where Clinton is guilty of indiscretions, Bush has the problem that nearly everything he did, he did worse.

Worse yet, you’re basically telling us not to get on Bush’s case because of what Clinton did, implying that we simply looked the other way, and therefore if we’re fair, we should look the other way here.

What a wonderfully moral argument!

If you want to know why Clinton wasn’t investigated… Wait! He was! There was plenty of investigation. The real problem is that the Republicans didn’t pick their battles. If they had stuck to clear, not merely suspicious cases, and made something of that, it’d be one thing. But they instead chose to squeeze blood from a stone with the Whitewater/Monica Lewinsky affair. The general perception of these investigations has been rarely all that positive, because those bringing them never explained to folks why it was in their best interests that millions be spent pursuing the President’s behavior long before he came into office or that we get to the bottom of what Clinton was doing with that woman Lewinsky.

The Republicans were always willing to jump on mere suspicion, making mountains out of molehills. The constant attacks, unjustified by any major policy problems seemed more like a way to occupy the President’s time and sap his political prestige than truly pursue real oversight.

What makes Bush seem worse to most people is that his failures, under investigation, have killed thousands of Americans, balooned deficits, undermined our prestige… people see his unsupervised behavior as a threat to this country. Americans might have liked to know what Clinton was up to, but they want and need to know what Bush is up to.

You’re just not getting it: After all the pain and suffering we’ve had these past years, we’re not going to tolerate it from anyone, least of all the current officeholder. Bush has defied the will of the people on many fronts, and therefor little patience can be found for his secrecy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 8, 2007 5:16 PM
Comment #202084

Who is jumping to conclusions on suspicions? Sounds like you are!

I am talking about real cases of campaign finance violations that were never investigated by the Clinton Justice Department, Janet Reno, because Clinton silenced her.

The Abramoff case is a case of campaign finance violations that have been thoroughly investigated by the Bush Justice Dept., under John Ashcroft.

I am comparing apples to apples. Abramoff has nothing to do with secret wiretappings, the War on terror, etc.!

Jack Abramoff is the issue in this article, including the delving into private citizens records which ocurred just as frequently in the Clinton Administration.

Because Clinton did it does not justify Bush doing it. However, we knew Clinton did it and did nothing. Now you Clinton supporters are trying to make issues of things your own guy did while you defended him. It is not a particularly tuquoque issue trying to justify wrong doing, so much as it is the pointing out of your hypocrisy!!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 8, 2007 6:07 PM
Comment #202105

JD-

So what have you proven? How does that help? What on earth do you hope to achieve? Since it is completely possible to both support Clinton and disagree with some of his more notable indiscretions and ethical lapses, your argument is just partisan vitriol aimed at nobody in particular. Not the best way to advance any substantive discussion.

And none of this has changed the fact that our current president has habitually done unprecedented things to achieve some of the most unprecedented and non-transparent objectives in the history of the executive branch. Democrats could blow smoke all day long about the moral and ethical bankruptcy that preceeded the great depression, but in the end its just smoke…a bunch of meaningless crap designed to invoke emotion so that a very real substantive debate cannot occur.

We live in a unique time, as the president so often says, and much of our response domestically as well as internationally has been unprecedented. So how can anyone feel comfortable comparing today’s political landscape to that of the 1990’s and using the comparisons as jusifications or attacks on those who support or reject current policies? Those policies cannot be, on one hand, wholly based upon the fact that we live in a unique time requiring an unconventional approach, and at the same time have any critic of the president attacked using analogies to the past as if the comparisons were entirely made in good faith (apples to apples so to speak).

Emotional provokation may be an extremely good way to get mass amounts of people to support a public position, but it is a terrible way to convince a bunch of independent minded, free-thinking (for the most part) bloggers of anything, let alone something as insane as Bush being less of a political and societal rogue than Clinton.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 8, 2007 7:37 PM
Comment #202115

JD-
The Abramoff case is not about campaign finance violations alone, though the TRMPAC issue is part of that whole culture of corruption. No, we have bribery, graft, and whole host of other goodies, including the shaking down of a number of Indian Tribes, all under the auspices of a joined-at-the-hip lobbying operation created by the Republicans that vastly exceeded anything even the Democrats the GOP replaced had in operation.

I have no problem with justice being done on Democrats. In fact, I hope it is done, just as I hope that most Democrats in Congress and elsewhere in the office make it unnecessary for it to be done to them.

If Clinton did such things, I don’t support them. Given that I don’t support such things, I can’t be called a hypocrite for being outraged when the president from another party commits them.

The question is, Why must you make us out to be hypocrites? You may not realize it, but you concede two things with that argument: the misconduct, and the knowledge that it is indeed improper. The accusation itself is a call for a more laissez faire attitude towards the violation in question, at least so long as your folks are doing it.

If you’re trying to defend yourself from charges that your party is overly corrupt, it’s a poor strategy. Moreover, if the other side fails to make a habit of apologizing for corruption, they come out looking better.

The Bush White House has made a business of contrasting itself with its predecessor, only to exceed in almost every way but the attainment of blowjobs from interns the reported iniquities of that administration. Worse yet, in many cases, as in that of the NSA wiretaps, not only does the president engage in what could be legitimately construed as illegal activity, but he even goes so far as to admit and rationalize it publically.

Worse for them than what they do admit to and glory in is what they won’t share with us, despite the fact we might need to or want to know. This administration does not seem to want to be moderated by the wishes of the people they govern.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 8, 2007 9:23 PM
Comment #202118

Kevin, Stephen,

Are those arguments really worth the effort?

The Bush strategy, repeat talking points ad nauseum regardless of truth, works in some cases by burning a hole in susceptable brains. It’s just not worth trying to pull those scabs off; it may let something else out. Remember Geraldo, the skin head, and a broken nose?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 8, 2007 9:35 PM
Comment #202128

Kevin, Stephen, and Dave1,

I believe Clinton and the Democrats first turned to the Bible, probably the only time in their lives, when Clinton was going through the fiasco with the investigations. It is they who coined that phrase, “let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone”. I’m just simply returning the favor. Funny you guys bought it then, but won’t buy it now. I wonder why?

Maybe because it was so disingenuous. To each of you-

Did you or did you not support the impechment of Clinton for committing Perjury while under oath in a civil suit deposition, and for Obstruction of Justice. Those were facts. I did not, or anyone else for that matter, make them up.

G.W.Bush has not been charged with anything illegal, yet you already seem to have him impeached. That is my point; all this is speculation, and your interpretation of his motives.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 9, 2007 12:15 AM
Comment #202137

JD:
Believe it or not it is the BUSH administration that is subverting the law in order to cover their tracks.

The American public never cared about bjs in the White House, but they do care that their sons and daughters are in harms way for an unjust war. They do care that lobbyists move freely in and out of the White House through, a now secret, revolving door, in order to create back-room deals.

This administration is corrupt, has been corrupt and will continue to be corrupt. Moving Secret Service logs to White House control is just another back-room deal that’s politically motivated to cover their collective butts.

Posted by: john trevisani at January 9, 2007 6:14 AM
Comment #202142

“This administration is corrupt, has been corrupt and will continue to be corrupt. Moving Secret Service logs to White House control is just another back-room deal that’s politically motivated to cover their collective butts.”

Indeed.
Bush on Abramoff: “I don’t know him.”
Bush and Abramoff have met. Here is the photo.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 9, 2007 10:15 AM
Comment #202143

John
The American public did care when their son’s and daughters were sent to fight a war against a country which did not threaten the US, in the 90’s.
They also cared that American men, women and children were tortured and killed on US soil, in the 90’s.
They also cared that illegal money was being funneled to campaigns, in the 90’s.
They also cared that their rights were being violated, in the 90’s.

Why are your concerns over the same actions being committed today, more valid than theirs were then?

BTW, good topic. Thanks for bringing it to light.

Posted by: kctim at January 9, 2007 10:34 AM
Comment #202145

Bush can wiretap anyone, and read anyones mail, but we can’t know who enters the Whitehouse.
It is also being floated that he’s chosen his new intelligence chief to broaden domestic surveillance even further.

kctim:
“Why are your concerns over the same actions being committed today, more valid than theirs were then?”

Read the above linked article. Also, read this:
Citizen soldiers may be the key to Iraq buildup
Sending Guard, Reserve units on second tours would be a policy shift.

The nation’s top military officials, expecting President Bush to order an increase in the size of the force in Iraq, have concluded that such a buildup would require them to reverse Pentagon policy and send the Army’s National Guard and Reserve units on lengthy second tours in Iraq, Defense Department officials said Monday.

Under Pentagon policy, Guard and Reserve units have been limited to 24 months of mobilization for the Iraq war. That means most Reserve units that already have been sent to Iraq are ineligible to return. But the Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded that a significant troop buildup would require the Pentagon to send Guard and Reserve units for additional yearlong tours.


Posted by: Adrienne at January 9, 2007 11:07 AM
Comment #202147

JD,

Do you even know what “impeachment” means?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 9, 2007 11:20 AM
Comment #202163

Adrienne
I worry about that also.
But, concerns over rights violations, unjust wars and corruption should not be dependent on which party is in power.
If the Reps are only concerned when the liberals are in power and the liberals are only concerned when the Reps are in power, nothing gets done.

Thats all in the past? Times are different and the liberals will now be concerned at all times, as Stephen said?
Well, your chance to prove that, has started and I hope you all mean it.
But, until you guys prove it, we can only go by history and history shows that you only care when the Republicans are in power.
Please prove me wrong! I will be the first to congratulate you all.

Posted by: kctim at January 9, 2007 1:35 PM
Comment #202190

And then there’s this:

They’re Watching

If you’ve traveled abroad recently, you’ve been investigated. You’ve been assigned a score indicating what kind of terrorist threat you pose. That score is used by the government to determine the treatment you receive when you return to the U.S. and for other purposes as well.

Curious about your score? You can’t see it. Interested in what information was used? You can’t know that. Want to clear your name if you’ve been wrongly categorized? You can’t challenge it. Want to know what kind of rules the computer is using to judge you? That’s secret, too. So is when and how the score will be used.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 9, 2007 4:38 PM
Comment #202192


kctm: Do you mean something like this?

During the Clinton Administration the oversight committee in the House of Representives issued over 1,000 subpoenas to investigate alleged Administration and Democratic Party misconduct, and it recieved over two million pages of documents. The information demanded by Congress included details of discussions between President Clinton and his closest advisors, internal e-mails from the office of the Vice President, FBI interview notes and documents describing internal Administration deliberations. Clinton White House officials including the President’s top aids provided hundreds of hours of testimony to Congressional committees.

Over $35 million was spent on Congressional investigations of the Clinton Administration. Combined with investigations by independent councils, the taxpayers forked out over $150 million to investigate Clinton.

Before Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, congressional authority to issue subpoenas was viewed as a serious power to be exercised judiciously. From as far back as the McCarthy Era in the 1950’s to the Republican takeover in 1995, NO DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN issued a subpoena without either consent from the minority or a committee vote. This long-standing tradition of restraint was abandoned by the Republicans. During the Clinton Administration, the chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, Dan Burton unilaterally issued over 1000 subpoenas to investigate Clinton and the Democrats.

Republican congressional oversight committees have shown extraordinary deference to the Bush Administration. No subpoenas have been issued to the Bush White House and as documented in a companion report, numerous allegations of serious wrongdoing have been ignored.

www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041026154704-05115.pdf

Posted by: jlw at January 9, 2007 4:55 PM
Comment #202195

Jlw
I don’t see how that relates to how we the people need to be critical of our govt at all times no matter which party is in charge.
I’m sorry I am missing your point, busy day here at work.

Posted by: kctim at January 9, 2007 5:18 PM
Comment #202200

kctim:

I don’t see how that relates to how we the people need to be critical of our govt at all times no matter which party is in charge.

You’re the person that seems to put this in the ‘nit-picky’ category. This isn’t about Clinton. This isn’t about the republicans versus Clinton. What i’ve noticed is that the FBBS (Faith Based Bush Supporters) crowd always seem to throw in a Clinton curve-ball in some desperate effort to spin the conversation away from the fact the Bush administration has (yet again) trampled on any issue that is completely indefensible.

The issue here is that the Bush Administration, removed the administration of managing visitor logs to the White House in an effort to cover-up the tracks of corruption leading straight into the Oval office.

Their actions are reprehensible and indefensible; no matter how the FBBS spins it.

Posted by: john trevisani at January 9, 2007 5:45 PM
Comment #202212


kctim: Like it or not, Congress represents we the people and they are the ones that have to investigate the presidents on our behalf. As you know, the Republicans left no stone unturned when investigating Clinton and yet they found nothing with which to prosecute. If they had, they would have done so. Janet Reno certainly didn’t hamper the Republicans. Many Democrats, Including myself, weren’t thrilled with some of Clinton’s foibles and we have said as much in the past. But, that was in the past.

As we also know, the Republicans refused to investigate Bush even though many alligations of wrongdoing have been sighted.

Posted by: jlw at January 9, 2007 7:02 PM
Comment #202213

If you guys really knew what happened during the Clinton investigation into his Perjury and Obstruction of Justice, (not his blowjobs with Monica Lewinsky, sorry, guys that cover is getting really old), you would know that Clinton did not release any records of White House visits until they were under subpeona, and he had no choice. He also tried to conceal them. In numerous press encounters at the White House Mike McCurry, Clinton’s Press Secretary was asked if Clinton would release White House logs. I suggest you go back and review some of the 90’s Press Conferences for yourself since you seem to pretend that you know so much about them. White House logs are not available for anyone’s public view. Your attempt to pass them off as such makes one wonder what the real motive here is. Perhaps, a Democratic witch hunt.

After all, the Abramoff scandal has already been thoroughly investigated by special prosecutors. That obviously is not good enough for the Democratic Party, so they want to view the White House logs in an attempt to smear the President if Abramoff ever happened to visit there, which I’m sure he did. The White House, after all, is the hub of activity just as are the Halls of Congress, also.

Are you guys going to ask for the number of times Abramoff and his cronies happened to visit Harry Reid’s office, or other Democrats’ offices? Hmm?
How many times did Abramoff sleepover at Harry’s house? I wonder? Boy, it sure would be nice if Harry kept logs of that! Alas, I guess we’ll never know, but we do know Reid took lots of money from him, or was that made up, too?

JD

Posted by: JD at January 9, 2007 7:07 PM
Comment #202217

John T.
I am not placing anything into a category and I am not trying to distract from the current situation.
This clinton “curve ball” you speak of is hilarious to say the least.
SOME people do believe that since you guys failed to act on clinton, then you should leave Bush alone. I am not one of them.
I have no problems with investigating or prosecuting for proven wrongs based on facts.
I am merely stating that no good comes of any of it IF “We the People” only care about wrongs committed by the “other” side.

Jlw
Could you or John T show where I have defended Bushs’ action here? No.
In fact, I really don’t have any problem with your last post either. I DO believe some investigations are needed, I just don’t believe anything positive will happen unless we hold our Reps accountable, no matter which party they belong to.
The only objection I have to your last post was the with the word foibles.
I hardly consider sending our troops off to fight a war against a country which did not threaten us, violating rights and torturing and killing American citizens qualifies as a foible.

Guys, its not an either or thing with me and until we all view it that way, nothing will change.

Posted by: kctim at January 9, 2007 7:41 PM
Comment #202221


JD: Did the Clinton Administration give the Republican Congress what it asked for in it’s 1000 plus subpoenas? Did the officials show up at the hearings and testify?

Do you think the Bush Administration will hand over documents to the Democratic Congress without subpoenas? Do you think they will hand over the documents even if Congress does use subpoenas?

By the way, the Abramoff investigation is being conducted by the Justice Dept. and the FBI and it is far from over. Abramoff is still squealing like a pig. I am sure the FBI is looking at Reid and many others. If Reid is charged and found guilty of wrong doing, I won’t mind it a bit if he shares a cell with Cunningham, Ney or hopefully Delay.

Posted by: jlw at January 9, 2007 7:58 PM
Comment #202222

jlw,

That is just the point. There is no charge pending that would require him to give any of the documents. Ther4e is no justification for a subpeopna. Bush has not been charged with anything as Clinton was. Bush has not been singled out as one of those whom the investigations center around. Reid has definite;ly been mentioned as having taken money and goods from Abramoff. If indictments or subpeonas were issued against Reid, there would be justification for it. So far, to my knowledge, no one has fingered Bush.

The Democrats are simply trying to make political hay out of this to feed to their cattle so that they will be more easily led around by the rings in their noses. Let the investigation be concluded, and let it go where it may. But, let there be no witch hunt!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 9, 2007 8:12 PM
Comment #202228


JD: When a Republican committee chairman issues more than 1000 subpoenas unilaterally without consulting the opposition or even other Republicans on his committee, wouldn’t you call that a witch hunt? Most of those subpoenas had nothing to do with criminal charges pending against Clinton, his wife or the Administration.

Congress issues subpoenas to try to find out if wrong doing has occured, not to prove charges.
If a Democratic committee chairman unilaterally issues more than 1000 subpoenas to the Bush Administration, I would consider that a witch hunt.

Congress has a responsibility for oversight of any administration. The Republicans refused to do their responsibility. Hopefully the Democrats won’t refuse their oversight responsibility. To do it, they will have to issue subpoenas because Bush will refuse to cooperate with any investigation. I will be willing to bet that Bush will refuse to honor subpoenas as well and Congress will be forced to go to the SC to get compliance. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush refuses to comply with the SC.

The Bush Administration has taken the position that they have a right to know what every American is doing. They have also taken the position that nobody, not the people or their elected representatives have a right to know what the Administration is doing. I believe that We The People do have a right to know. We did not elect a King, we elected a president and we expect that president to abide by the rules and we expect our Congress to oversee what he is doing and report to us. We should and most of us do expect this of every president no matter what party he belongs to.

Posted by: jlw at January 9, 2007 8:52 PM
Comment #202232

jlw,

Where is your evidence that Bush will refuse to comply with his opposition?

It was not he and his administration that stole documents and hid them under a trailer from the 9/11 commission. I believe that was Sandy Berger from the previous Administration. When has Bush ever refused to comply with any special commission for requested materials?

He has weighed in on every discussion with those groups that have disagreed or given him advice. However, he does not cow-tow to the Democratic Party just because they demand him to do so. It seems your idea of compliance is giving the Democrats everything they want. Sorry, in politics that just doesn’t happen.

So, you really think that Bush would gladly be held in contempt of the Supreme Court. Well, I doubt that seriously. However, It wouldn’t be the first time a President was deemed contemptable by a Federal judge, or have we so quickly forgotten?


JD

Posted by: JD at January 9, 2007 9:26 PM
Comment #202240

JD do you have any proof that Reid took money directly from Abramoff?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 9, 2007 9:54 PM
Comment #202242

“It seem your idea of compliance is giving the Democrats everything they want. Sorry, in politics that just doesn’t happen.”

JD: I am willing to accept the Bush Administration being required to give the same kind of evidence and the same testimony from Administration officials that the Republicans forced the Clinton Administration to give up with their subpoenas. Before you made the statement above, you should have taken the time to look at everything the Clinton Administration was forced to reveal.

One example, the Cheney secret meeting with oil executives to plan the energy bill and possibly the war with Iraq. The Administration has sited executive privilege and refused to reveal what was discussed. What they discussed has an affect on everyone of us and We the People have a right to know what they decided.

Posted by: jlw at January 9, 2007 9:59 PM
Comment #202305

jlw,

Sorry once again!

Perhaps, Cheney should reveal the Energy meeting attendees when Hillary reveals the attendees in the meeting she had where it was decided that the government take over all medical practice and health insurance in the United States. She wasn’t even a part of the government or an official of the United States, though I guess you could say she was the “acting VP” since we had such a lousy one under Clinton. Sounds like a little nepotism to me, though.

Private or secret meetings take place in Washington all the time. This is common knowledge!
Next issue, please!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 10, 2007 10:42 AM
Comment #202308

j2t2,

It has been reported by ABC on Novemeber 16, 2006, after the election of course, that Harry Reid had requested at least $30,000 from Abramoff, and agreed to help him in exchange on some matters concerning Indian Casinos.

That my friend is bribery on Abramoff’s part and could be considered extortion on Harry Reid’s part considering he madde the request.

Thanks!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 10, 2007 10:55 AM
Comment #202344


JD: I am with you 100%. We’ll drag Hillary and the liberal health care advocates in and Cheney and the oil CEO’s in and have a good interrogation. If you like, we can use the Bush method. We’ll shoot them up with sodium pentothol and waterboard them.

But first, perhaps you can explain what affect Hillary’s health care plan has had on the nation and its people and perhaps you can explain why we should believe that Cheney’s energy plan has nothing to do with policy and doesn’t affect our nation and us.

Posted by: jlw at January 10, 2007 1:44 PM
Comment #202377

jlw,

Hey, I for one would like to see Hillary waterboarded. Perhaps we could learn the names of a few more people in Whitewater, other than the fourteen that were indicted and convicted. We might get a better idea of her role as well.

As for Cheney, do what you wish, but be careful. He has a weak heart!

But seriously, Hillary’s Health care task force did not take over 1/7 of the economy because Republicans did not go along with it. They voted it down.

Dems on the other hand did not have the opportunity to vote down the Bush energy plan because they were not the Party in power. Therefore, it passed. If you look at the contents of Bush’s energy plan, it has some very good ideas, by the way, including additional resources for alternative power. This, attempting to wean the U.S. from its dependence on foriegn oil!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 10, 2007 3:42 PM
Comment #202381

JD,

Are you aware that the latest Republican proposals for health care are fundamentally unchanged from those of Hillary’s taskforce?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 10, 2007 4:02 PM
Comment #202385

Good call Dave1.
Did you see what Arnie is doing to the country of California?
Nothing but pandering.
What a great Republican he is.

Posted by: kctim at January 10, 2007 4:41 PM
Comment #202389

Dave1,

I never said that the Republican Party didn’t have its fair share of liberals.
But, now that you mention it, where did the conservatives go in the Democratic Party? I guess they have been assigned to sweeping the Democratic skeletons into the Congressional closets!

Actually, most of the more liberal Republicans got trounced in the last election. For the most part conservatives won out. Hopefully, when Republicans take over the House and the Senate again, they will be more unified. With John McCain running for President he will probably have to give up his seat in the Senate to run a productive campaign, if that is he gets the nomination which is doubtful. However, the prospect of this is exciting, because without McCain in the Senate, the Republicans are much better off.

As for California, there may never be another Reagan come out of there. It has gone much too far to the left, to the detriment of that State. Arnie is still much farther right than Gray was, though. That is probably why people were leaving the state under Gray in droves, and California is still having such a rough time of it.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 10, 2007 5:22 PM
Comment #202408

kc,

I think Arnie is a fantastic leader. He remembers that he works for the people and the future, not for the Party and big business. In fact, it’s scary how much the GOP hard core sounds like Soviet era hard liners.

JD,

It’s even more scary to think that some Americans actually believe the GOP is diverse and too far left.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 10, 2007 6:39 PM
Comment #202419

JD-

I’m not sure why you don’t address the real points that people make, but in the end it doesn’t matter. I’m more than ready to start poking holes in democratic legislation, but you seem to want only for democrats to agree that Clinton was as bad a president as Bush, or some other meaningless load of irrelevent crap. I’m sorry, but there is not much substance to the argument outside of a few cute analogies. And I could give a shit who is the bigger hypocrite (your main focus)…so long as it can get the country moving in the right direction, who cares? Times and people do change…life is not static, its fluid.

We’ll see what democrats start digging up when they get to start asking real questions. They’ve always tended to be the party of “means justifying the ends”, so lets see where it gets them. I’m much more interested to see what my own party looks like after Bush announces today that he will continue to be himself and act unilaterally. If we’ve got any balls left outside of the white house, then it should make for a hell of a budget debate.

re: Arnie

People in CA love him. He gets more popular each year. If that upsets anyone, they are obviously not from CA, and are therefore irrelevent. Long live democracy and thank god for politicians who actually care what their constituents think. Anyone with half a brain who has stepped foot in CA in the last 4 years knows that we’re better off with Arnie than we’ve been in a long, long time.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 10, 2007 7:42 PM
Comment #202455

So basically the neocons think Clinton’s crime is just as bad as Bush, that he got a BJ and wasn’t too eager to have it made into public knowledge. Apparently it’s worthy of the same level of scrutiny as an immoral war killing thousands of Americans and civilians, creating massive deficits we’ll have trouble paying off, and causing America to quickly switch from being viewed with admiration and respect, to one viewed either as a tyranny or a joke.

And that Clinton buying too much coffee with campaign money is somehow equivalent to the massive corruption that’s been going on in the GOP. Apparently they want to convince themselves that Clinton really was never investigated, and all the GOP corruption and scandals have all been investigated and cleared. Wow… It’s actually scary that so many Americans value fascist-like loyalty to a corrupt group of people over being in touch with reality.

The sad thing is you’re never going to get any sort of coherent argument from them. Faith-based Bush supporters (like a cult member) will always just ignore everything you say and repeat the same thing over and over again, no matter how silly it is.

I think somemight subconsciously realize the truth that Bush is probably one of the worst presidents in American history and has led us down the toilet, however since he’s their “dear leader” they have to somehow convince themselves that Democrats like Clinton are really just as bad and equally responsible for the mess we’re in. They can’t understand that someone who criticizes Bush may have a valid point. Instead they always are only doing it for some personal agenda.

Posted by: thomas at January 10, 2007 11:46 PM
Comment #202500

Well Thomas, the fact that you choose to link only the perjury crime to clinton shows just how blinded by party you are.
Our troops were sent to fight a war with a country who did not threaten us. One US soldier died and thousands of civilians died.
American citizens, not POW’s, were tortured and killed.
Suspected enemies of the US were sent out of country to be “interogated.”
The govt used fear to further strip 2nd & 4th Amendment rights. Laws such as no-knock, allow police and govt agents to forcefully enter your home without identifying themselves or their concerns first.
And I don’t even want to start on the abuse of power, hiding evidence, OBL, national security and corruption accusations.

But keep preaching it all about a bj to keep justifying his actions to yourself.

Posted by: kctim at January 11, 2007 9:19 AM
Comment #202537

Thomas-

As a nearly life-long republican, I’m forced to admit that I’m more embarrassed to be associated with the extreme right fringe of my party than I have ever been in my life.

The preceeding post is a great example of why. I love what Stephen Colbert calls it: the truth untainted by facts. And the overarching argument has become: Clinton burned ants with a magnifying glass, therefore Bush should have free reign to burn ants with a nuclear holocaust. I mean, they’re both just burning ants, right?

And pointing out hypocracy in Washington, something I can train a dog to do, is suddenly more relevent than anything else?

I chalk it all up to sour grapes. A desperate attempt by straight-ticket voting republicans to drag everyone else through the mud that their policies created.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 11:51 AM
Comment #202568

Kevin23,

If you can really train dogs to dig up hypocrisy in Washington, you should contact ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. They may be hiring. Oh, I forgot, you better train them to only dig up on the Republicans!!

So, when you guys try to take down a sitting President with nothing more than speculative accusations, the fact that former Presidents did exactly the same thing you are criticizing has no relevance?

I appreciate your sense of fairness. I hope none of you are sports referees! You guys would have parents fighting in the stands!!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 11, 2007 1:12 PM
Comment #202571

Its not about fairness JD.
Some people don’t believe you should judge BOTH sides in the same light.
You have to pick sides and agree with them or you are wrong, no matter what.

Posted by: kctim at January 11, 2007 1:21 PM
Comment #202602

kc,

I just don’t get it yet, since I’m sure you’d make a really good liberal… Keep posting though.
—don’t go ballistic on this, you are clearly a con, it’s just you seem to have such liberal ideas and just say them in a con way—

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 11, 2007 2:25 PM
Comment #202616

JD-

Here we go again with the “you guys”. Who the hell is “you guys?”

“So, when you guys try to take down a sitting President with nothing more than speculative accusations, the fact that former Presidents did exactly the same thing you are criticizing has no relevance?”

Times and circumstances change, JD. We are not living in the 1990’s anymore. To premise your argument on this is foolish. In fact, the whole premise of the Bush plan is that we live in unique times calling for unprecedented action.

“Oh, I forgot, you better train them to only dig up on the Republicans!!”

You forgot what exactly? I think you forgot to do your research and figure out exactly who it is you are talking to: a conservative with little patience for haphazard and assumptive emotional arguments from the willfully blind party faithful. You may take pride in straight-ticket voting and partisanship for its own sake, but I would rather fall back on something more meaningful when challenged. I’m a realist…for better or for worst, and I’m not about to give my party a free pass when its obvious to everyone they screwed the pooch.

Now its a question of the best plan going forward. Rome was NOT built in a day.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 3:07 PM
Comment #202621

Dave1
Thanks? lol

“—don’t go ballistic on this, you are clearly a con, it’s just you seem to have such liberal ideas and just say them in a con way—”

I don’t go ballistic, I enjoy it here and I’ve been called them all since I’ve been here too. I was called a liberal just last week in fact.
Ever hear the saying that political beliefs form a cirlce and they eventually meet up? I think I just happen to be closer to that meeting point than others are.

Posted by: kctim at January 11, 2007 3:47 PM
Comment #202807

kc,

There may have to be an adjustment to that circle analogy. Perhaps we have a circle with a knot, or adjust for Einsteinian curved space-time, or maybe we just need to add up/down and in/out?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 12, 2007 12:56 PM
Comment #202902

Dave1,

“It’s even more scary to think that some Americans actually believe the GOP is diverse and too far left.”

No, it is even more scary that any Democrats actually think that the Democratic Party is moderate or centrist!!
I had to reprimand a Democrat just the other day in one of the newspapers for celebrating the election of a single mom, socialist, and agnostic in the Chile Presidential election. Geez!!
With moderates like that let’s just invite Castro to be our President!!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 12, 2007 5:55 PM
Comment #202910

JD-

How was this lady a moderate? Also, is “the election of a single mom, socialist, and agnostic in the Chile Presidential election” something that is better than what they have now? If not, then she’s a loon, not a moderate. If so, why shouldn’t that be celebrated by a journalist who’s writing on the topic?

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 12, 2007 6:31 PM
Comment #202934

Kevin23,

No the Democrat writing the article was praising the election of a single mom, socialist, agnostic. He was also characterizing himself as a moderate.

Again, an American Democrat who would celebrate a single mom, socialist, agnostic winning an election, then criticizing the U.S. for not following in Chile’s footsteps is hardly a moderate. That is not that hard to understand, I hope! Perhaps, I should have clarified more thoroughly.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 12, 2007 8:53 PM
Comment #202945

JD-

despite your snide ending…


“criticizing the U.S. for not following in Chile’s footsteps is hardly a moderate.”

I think that’s exactly what I said before. Yet you originally used your example to criticize mainstream moderate democrats by directly comparing the two. Now you call them extreme? You can’t have it both ways.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 12, 2007 9:39 PM
Post a comment