Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

If you say something enough it becomes true right?

If anything though you have to give credit where credit is due, they have held the hearings and conducted a lot of investigations. And the media is falling all over itself showing us the results of the first 100 days … sorry first 180 days … sorry first …

Jack, the hearings are extremely necessary and important to many of us who respect and have served to defend our U.S. Constitution.

Now, as for the other matters Democrats haven’t found time to get to, I couldn’t agree with you more. They have been busy, I just don’t think their priorities are in line, outside Forcing a debate on Iraq, addressing health care in this country, and the very important oversight and investigatory hearings absent under Republican rule of Congress.

Compared to other abuses by this administration, the firing of prosecutors is nothing. Congress should do its duty and immediately begin impeachment proceedings. Republican misrule has damaged the integrity of the government; I wish Congress had the balls to set matters right.

Jack,
In a deft bit of political maneuvering, the Democratic House and Senate are finally managing to pass a Lobbying Reform bill. Although both Republicans and Democrats voted overwhelmingly for it, one Republican Senator from South Carolina kept stopping from going to conference by using the filibuster. The Democrats have found an effective parliamentary response: they will not send it to committee, instead putting it up for votes in the House & Senate as is, without possibility of amendments.

For those actually following politics, this is huge. The Republicans have chosen to stop Democratic legislation with filibusters, thereby giving the impression this is a “do-nothing” Congress. It may be obstructionist, but Republicans certainly have that right. Yet once again, Reid, Pelosi, and Hoyer have outmaneuvered the hapless Republicans.

The Democratic Congress is doing a pretty good job, considering their opponents have no intention of letting anything near and dear to the Democrats pass.

Articles such as the one in this article ignore the less telegenic, yet far more important stories. The article posits the false conception that the only thing happening are televised hearings, and that is simply, flatly not accurate.

As for the hearings… Why did Monica Goodling plead the Fifth, and accept immunity? Oh yeah. That. And Seven DOJ officials have already resigned because of this investigation.

How many White House officials have invoked executive privilege in order to avoid testifying? How many documents are being withheld?

And did anyone who actually watch the Gonzalez testimony on C-SPAN? If so, you then know Gonzalez is despicable. It was one of the lowest, ugliest things I have seen.

But the same talking points keep popping up. For example:

“The President has the right to fire U.S. Attorneys for any reason at all. He does not have to have a good reason. These are political appointees. Clinton fired the whole lot of them when he came into office.”

That is true, but ignores the obvious. The President cannot fire USAs for reasons which are illegal. Obstructing justice is illegal. That is why is accepted practice for an incoming administration to replace USAs, but it is unheard of for them to be fire in midterm.

The continuity of the DOJ from administration to administration comes from the career appointees, who are supposed to put politics aside. That is where Goodling and others fell astray of the law. They used political affiliation as a criteria for hiring.

Well, I could go on and on, obviously. Pardon the rant.

Jack, you hit it right on the head. The Democrats, and everybody else with partisan axes to grind against the administration, should step back for a minute and honestly think about whether they’d tolerate attacks such as these on anybody except those they disagree with politically. I seriously hope they wouldn’t.

It’s essentially being maintained that we need these investigations because how else are we going to find evidence of wrongdoing to pin on the administration?

That wrongdoing exists is simply assumed, and what’s so crazy about all this is that the absence of proof is actually being used as the reason why the investigations are necessary. The less evidence there is, the more need there is to investigate. It’s completely backwards and upside-down.

LO,
Did you see Gonzales testify? What did you think?

Phx8, I saw some but not all of Gonazles’ testimony.

It did nothing to influence to my long-held belief that the guy is a poor Attorney General who only holds his job because of his long association and personal friendship with Bush. I thought John Ashcroft was much better, but still less than stellar. It’s hard to say, however, if either is worse than Janet Reno.

As for whether or not anything Gonzales said in his testimony warrants investigation or punishment, no. The perjury accusation has been completely discredited at this point, and all that’s left to wonder about is why, considering the legal talent in this country, we keep getting such poor people in the position of Attorney General.

My uncle, when he was Treasurer for Marin County, worked with Ed Meese while he was in Sacramento, and my uncle had only the most complimentary things to say about Meese. But like Colin Powell, Meese fell in with the wrong crowd, and found himself being a team player for the wrong team; it cost him his credibility & reputation, and deservedly so.

My friend since childhood worked very closely with Janet Reno. Although I knew his political inclinations perfectly well, he would never discuss them with me while he was with the DOJ. He did speak highly of Janet Reno. Her devotion to law was pure, and it was total. Unfortunately, she completely lacked political sense. She was easy to manipulate, and ultimately everyone suffered because of it.

That is an interesting observation- despite the large pool of talent, the AGs of recent decades seem to be a very mediocre bunch.

phx8 said: “The Democratic Congress is doing a pretty good job, considering their opponents have no intention of letting anything near and dear to the Democrats pass.”

This has all the appearances of having been the Republican’s strategy formed in 2006, when they recognized the polls were not going to support their bid for majority status in Congress in last Nov’s. elections. Drop virtually everything in Congress, pass it on to the Democrats to deal with if they acquire a majority. And then, use their filibuster and Democrats’s slim majority to try to paint Democrats as ‘do nothing’.

This seemed apparent to me, and I thought the Republicans were actually somewhat effective as I began seeing the generalization comments about Democrat’s do nothing Congress. Which prompted me to actually take a look at the record, which in turn prompted my article in the center column regarding over generalizations and how much Democrats have actually passed in just six months, at a rather blistering pace despite the investigation and oversight hearings.

Appears their plan is not working, nearly as well as they thought. But, that can be said about most of what they have tried to do since 9/11. Even their plan to hold their Big Tent Party together through thick and thin, which was very successful, fell apart after November’s elections.

LO said: “The less evidence there is, the more need there is to investigate. It’s completely backwards and upside-down.”

It would appear from that comment that you will not accept the intention of our founding fathers that government be transparent (except for national security risks), and in the anticipation that people with power will not volunteer such transparency, they actually created oversight and investigation authorities in the people’s Houses to insure such transparency is forced, if not proffered.

You can call it backwards if you wish. But, in a real sense you are calling our founding fathers backwards, for what the Congress is engaging in is entirely defended by the U.S. Constitution and laws emanating from it. The absence of conservative scholars calling Democrat’s action illegal or unconstitutional, is truly a testament in its own right.

No, David. I’m not rejecting “the intention of our founding fathers that government be transparent.” You are.

I’m saying that political partisans shouldn’t muddy the waters of transparency by persecuting their opponents on political grounds which have nothing to do with known facts. Dressing up partisanship as investigations into “matters of law” when the “transparent” facts do not support accusations of violations of law is the real problem.

Transparency is the enemy of the Democrats here—they’re going absolutely nuts because the facts don’t support their insanely partisan and unsupported presumptions of guilt.

It’s made worse when the inquisitors basically admit that they have no evidence and use that lack of evidence as the very reason why they need to investigate even more.

Seems that you’re perfectly ready to live with kangaroo courts of the kind that typify police states, so long as the victims are those with whom you have partisan beefs.

David,
Yes, I read your article in the center, and it makes a good point. The Democrats are doing pretty well when it comes to passing legislation. Reid & Pelosi have been running rings around their opponents. Unfortunately, what they are doing does not exactly capture the imagination of the public. Hearings are much more interesting for- well, not most people, most pay no attention at all to politics- but anyway, for some, televised testimony catches attention.

The DOJ hearings command some attention, but it is easily dismissed by talking points and dismissive catch phrases, ignoring the fact that the hearings have already resulted in seven DOJ resignations, one person pleading the Fifth and receiving immunity for the crimes she committed, at least three claiming executive privilege, and meanwhile, the withholding of large amounts of evidence continues.

Should Gonzales be impeached? I would like to see it. I think he deserves it. I suspect he has violated his oath to the Constitution. But unlike most, I would not support impeachment unless it is an open and shut case. The evidence needs to be incontrovertible. For me, “high crimes and misdemeanors” should be a high standard. And the obvious course taken by the Republicans is to refuse to testify, and withhold evidence, and chances are that will save their bacon.

They can run out the clock, on this and other issues, such as Iraq. I am pretty sure they will succeed, and dump the Bush administration failures on the next incoming one.

But they will pay a heavy price for the path they have chosen. Republicans ignore the results of the 2006 midterms at their own peril.

Jack,

Well it sure beats debating non-existant flag burning and anti-marriage amendments that don’t have a chance of passing. Or how about all those tax payer dollars Republicans wasted holding hearings on Clinton’s sex life? How quickly we forget the Republican legislation debates to distract the public and make political hay.

LO
If you have the evidence before an investigation then you do not need an investigation.An asumption of wrongdoing is a prerequsite for any investigation. When your accountant goes over your books he looks for errors does he not?

Jayjay

Welcome back.

Read the Leahy link. He makes an excellent argument against the Republican witch hunts re Clinton and the Democratic witch hunts re Bush (although I am sure he would like to forget it now).

I make a distinction between political disagreements and legal requirements. Politics can be nasty and brutal. We decide things politically when we disagree. It beats fighting.

When politicans start trying to use the law to settle their political scores, it is very dangerous for the health of democracy. It makes opponents unwilling to compromise or even speak lest they be in legal peril. That is what many are afraid of now. Even the most honest man might make some inconsistent statements. If they are all called perjury, all of us would be in danger.

Making political disagreements into legal issues is also just hateful. What they are saying is that it is not enough to win the point, they also want to ruin the person and bankrupt his family. It is terrible and shows the depths to which some people have fallen. Good people must condemn such behavior on the part of both their friends and enemies.

To my Dem friends, someday when your passions and hatreds fade, you may feel shame for having gone that dark route, just as I hope that some Republicans are ashamed of the foolishness around the Clinton attacks. Politics is rough, but it should have some limits.

BillS

If you investigate something with a goal in mind, you usually can find what you are looking for. The Dems have an intersting take on this. They investigate, find not much and then call for more investigations with the justification that there must be something wrong since the investigation did not find enough.

ALL

Think Ken Starr.

The President has the right to fire U.S. Attorneys for any reason at all.

Not true. He can’t fire someone for the purpose of interfering with an ongoing investigation. That could be obstruction of justice. (That’s my understanding at least.)

You’ve got to admit, for people with nothing to hide the Bushies are sure being shifty about this. If they had just explained from the outset who decided to fire these particular attorneys and what the rationale was (however thin) then there would be nothing left to investigate.

Comey, Negroponte and Mueller all contradicted Gonzalez’s sworn testimony. Thus, “the crime in advance” appears to be perjury at the very least.

So why are “the main villains” John Conyers and Patrick Leahey? Oh, because Jack said so.

Got it.

Jack,

Yes it is shocking that you are using the Clinton did it smokescreen!!!!!
The fact is bush fired his own people because they where not corrupt enough to fit in with his bush crime family government take over plan. His own people turned him in after the last election. They new nothing would get done with the rubber stamp republicans in control. But you know that Jack, that’s why you are using the Clinton did it smokescreen!!!!!!! You are right it will work on the bush’s 25% supporters. The sad thing is that how many other crimes are going undiscovered. We all know about the blood for oil war. How about the no bid contracts?????? Jack when you need a contractor do you just write them a blank check????? Or do you ask for some kind of accountability for what is done. Maybe you get three our more bids like I do. How can you defend these traitors??????? Every one makes mistakes in trusting some one and then later finding out you have been lied to. All you have to do is admit you where lied to. Know one will think lesser of you, it has happened to me allot. We are not blaming you for this mess!!!!! You could admit you where lied to and help us turn things around. We need honest republicans to stand up and do the right thing!!!!!!!! We where all lied to all the time. This bunch of criminals cannot tell the truth about anything.

Jack

The Dems have an interesting take on this. They investigate, find not much and then call for more investigations with the justification that there must be something wrong since the investigation did not find enough.

You say they find not much Jack. Get real, if they find anything it is worth pursuing. In light of the current state of governmental credibility I would think it is high time someone seriously pursues wrongdoing and sleaze in government. Any attempt to possibly use the justice system to favor political needs should and must be pursued vigorously. The previous republican congress’s idea of pursuing wrong doing was a self investigation, slap on the hand and a promise not to do it again. Corruption was acceptable and accountability was virtually non existent under republican rule. You can not honestly deny that Gonzalez has left the door open to serious suspicion. There simply are too many unanswered questions to disregard allegations. To do so would be telling government officials that to continue with this brand of opaque governance is proper. You go ahead and continue with your rhetorical spin Jack. It is what you are good at. But seriously, you are not doing your party any good or pulling the wool over anyones eyes.

LO, I have witnessed your comments simply dismissing facts in order to maintain your position. What’s happening is legal, constitutional, and there is evidence enough for oversight that the power of government was used for political purposes regarding both the DOJ dismissals, and the wireless wiretapping issue.

Dismissing and ignoring these facts pointed out many times now, gives meaning to your comments of denial. Your comments appear defensive for political purposes, which says to me anyway, what motivates your comments is not good governance and rule of law, but, identification with your party as if it were an NFL home team, the law and country be damned.

This kind of loyalty to party over good governance and nation are precisely why both the Duopoly parties are loosing registered voters to the Independent category. Your party more than the other, obviously, but, it fluctuates over elections.

I think it is a conflict of interest for a voter to both be loyal to their party right or wrong, and call themselves a patriot of the nation. The two conflict far too often, as in your party’s President’s violation of FISA law for example, and your party loyalists defending law breaking.

phx8, good posts (even the rant :^).
You wrote:
“The evidence needs to be incontrovertible. For me, “high crimes and misdemeanors‎ should be a high standard.”

As Mister Magoo just pointed out, Gonzales has already clearly perjured himself. We can’t have an Attorney General who lies repeatedly and still gets to keep his job, can we?

Woody, I agree that they brought this all on themselves. They didn’t even think to have a ready excuse made up. They’ve been so arrogant and unstoppable in their lawbreaking, they thought they didn’t need an excuse.

Jack-
It’s not an either-or proposition. We’ve been doing those things, too. There are only so many of us on these committees, and there are hundreds of folks in Congress. Maybe the anemic oversight of the Republican Congresses spoiled you in terms of how much a government can do, but this was actually par for the course long ago.

We’ve turned up quite a bit on the Administration’s dealings, actually. You’re minimizing things. Across the way, I documented one of the newest news items to come across on the Attorney firing case, where an attorney was almost fired for keeping settlement proceedings and their announcements moving along at a quick pace. Imagine that: firing people for doing their job.

No, what we’re getting is a situation where getting testimony from individuals in the White House is like pulling teeth, where even when they do volunteer to testify, they ask that it be off the record and not under oath. Can you give me any good reason why that should be standard practice?

Maybe it’s because traditionally, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, most US Attorneys are given autonomy from the politics, once they’re in place, reason being because you don’t want the defense in these cases to claim political motivation, and have that stick. You also want to preserve the appearance and the reality of impartiality, knowing that a case went before the court because the Prosecutor believed it was necessary to enforce the law, not because some Senator or Representative thought it would be good for their campaign, or because the national party wanted to keep its majority.

The president does have the right to fire each and ever one of the US Attorneys. However, most Presidents have chosen not to, because that all too easily brings accusations their way of political tampering. The Republicans, as of late, have become rather oblivious to such issues of impropriety, in both appearance and reality. They’re smart enough to realize it might look bad, but for some reason they move forward with it. Just ask that Murkowski woman from Alaska, who said that the deal might come back to bite her in the ass.

Politics has become a game of ass-covering, of using institutions and positions meant to serve our interests as a people for the personal enrichment of them, their cronies, their sponsors in the business world, and the upper-class in general. That’s got to stop, because we are seeing the pernicious results of that corruption in our day to day lives.

The US Attorneys will likely be replaced on Inauguration day 2008, but that will be customary. Just about every incoming president has done that. However, it’s always been a more or less wholesale event Nobody got selective about it, much less wrote up a list and got the president’s political consigliere involved. When people say that the appointments are political, it’s the origin of the appointment they’re talking about. They aren’t talking about taking the highest federal law enforcement officers in a state, and manipulating their offices to benefit the party.

If there’s a central point here, as in my entry, it’s this: there’s nothing strictly political about these offices. While the decisions there may have political consequences, their main consequence for the everyday American is not political, it’s very real. These Attorneys can take away people’s freedom, their fortunes, their good name. If that office becomes politicized, then the impression that we will have fair treatment under the law, regardless of what the political prerogatives are in the land, will be harmed. There’s a good likelihood that the next president will be a Democrat, so the question you must ask yourself is whether you want Democrats to hire and fire these chief law enforcement officers according to their political whims.

If a future Democratic president, say, doesn’t like Drug law enforcement, what would your response be if they fired attorneys that were too vigilant on the matter? If they wanted increased gun crime prosecution, and the prosecutors balked on good evidence against pursuing that route, would you want the president handing them their pink slips?

Or do you want these people doing their job? Their job is to enforce the law, and I wholeheartedly support them doing that.

A government cannot function properly if politics figures into everything, because politics is so often about appearances, and governing is so often about realities. One of the most damning comments about this administration was by a former head of faith-based initiatives, who said that there was no policy wing to the Bush White House, only a political wing; nobody was figuring out what was best to do, or how to do things, folks were just trying to play the Washington game. We need leadership that is more than just games-playing.

LO, I have witnessed your comments simply dismissing facts in order to maintain your position.

David, no one should claim to have either a perfect command of all the facts or a mind so flawless that their interpretation of facts is the only one possible.

Unfortunately, your arguments on this subject tend to put forth your own political opinions as “facts” in and of themselves and then use these so-called “facts” as the basis of discrediting the arguments of others. The pre-determined conclusions are so rigid that objective facts can make no dent in them.

Here are some facts for you then. Try to get beyond your political opinions and at least acknowledge them.

The challenges to the the President’s interpretation of the FISA laws have been thrown out of court. What’s more, the president has suspended that wiretapping program anyway. Further, Congress itself has attempted in the past to actually bolster the president’s view of this matter with legislation, and even right now, as we speak, the Democratic Congress and the Administration are trying to find an acceptable compromise on this issue.

At the very worst, the administration in the past held an incorrect interpretation of the law. Not the same thing at all as “breaking the law,” any more than it can be said that the measure’s detractors “broke the law” because their challenges were thrown out of court for lack of legal merit.

What’s more, as far as these investigations go, don’t simply assume that because Congress has oversight over the Executive branch, that those who disapprove of these investigations believe that “Congress should have no oversight of the administration.” That just a cheap debating trick.

A cop has the right to pull over speeders on the highway. If I say that a cop shouldn’t pull over and give tickets to commuters with Red Sox bumper stickers because he’s a die-hard Yankees fan, I’m not actually saying that cops have no right to enforce the laws on our highways. That’s nothing but a straw man. The issue is not whether Congress should be pursuing investigations based on partisan disagreements alone.

That Gonzales committed perjury is completely discredited nonsense. Even the New York Times admitted it, and there’s this opinion piece by a partisan Democrat in yesterday’s Washington Post. It’s a good example of somebody with strong partisan beliefs showing that they can put them aside when they begin actually acknowledging what the facts are as opposed to what they wish they were.

Gobal Warming, I thought that according to the Republicans there is no such thing, or is the false pres now agreeing with Al Gore?

“Rather than address serious issues such as global warming, the looming entitlement crisis & our security situation”

Jack,

Putting the same old debate over “attorney-gate” to rest for a moment I’d like to address those three issues.

Re: global warming—I’m sure you’ll see some highly contested debate and legislation regarding the environment by this time next year, probably late winter or early spring. That’s just an “edumicated” guess.

Re: security—I’d certainly think that Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendation Act (HR 1) qualifies in that category. I’d love to see a real border security measure as a “stand-alone” bill———-no “comprehensive” to it but that’s not likely.

The third and my choice to target for arguments sake is “the looming entitlement crisis”. Wow, you think all of these hearings are an act in futility!

Just consider that Medicare part D and Medicare Advantage plans did nothing but move Medicare much closer to insolvency and the fact that Bush and Congressional Republicans are fighting changes to those two programs tooth and nail what good would it do to undertake an even more comprehensive plan to reduce Medicare costs?

IMO the answer is to move every American towards equal access to health coverage regardless of their income level and cut out the middle man, but it ain’t gonna’ happen with a Republican in the White House, let alone without an overwhelming Liberal majority in both the Senate and the House.

Then there is Social Security. Do you think for one moment that Bush would sign into law any piece of legislation that didn’t include some sort of “privatization” scheme? Personally I’d like to see Congress propose developing a true “lock box” for the trust fund (with a deadline to restore the funds “stolen” so far) and annual adjustments to the cap on Social Security taxes (now at $97,500.00) as a start.

But it’s not going to happen, not until the pendulum swings much further to the left …….. like after the next great depression.

I should add that I hope my predictions and assumptions in that last post are wrong. I don’t mind being wrong, in fact sometimes I love being wrong.

LO said: “David, no one should claim to have either a perfect command of all the facts or a mind so flawless that their interpretation of facts is the only one possible.”

I understand the perceived need to be a relativist, no truth or facts, right or wrong, only anarchy of opinion and interpretation of events for the sake of maintaining one’s status as cheerleader for the home team. This kind of rationalization in the face of cognitive dissonance is participated in by a substantial portion of our society. It’s a free country.

I just wanted to point out how it is that Bush’s admin. can maintain 29% approval regardless of anything and everything that it does. Same was true of public opinion in Adolph Hitler’s Germany, even after WWII ended and his actions were made public.

LO-
Interpretation of FISA? To call it an interpretation is a creative interpretation all its own. The law is set up as the sole authority for domestic surveillance. Bush did not follow that law, but instead decided to search and surveil suspects and their associates in the United States without a warrant.

The reason the ACLU’s case was dismissed is that there’s no evidence that can be presented to the court that shows the ACLU was an injured party. That does not mean that the ACLU wasn’t injured, it’s just that the program was so secret, nobody can reveal what went on!

That civil suit, though, does not speak as to whether the program was illegal or not. The whole situation surrounding the visit to Ashcroft in the hospital came about because the acting Attorney General, James Comey I believe, balked at re-authorizing it. That’s a pretty good indicator that people within the administration thought it was illegal. Another indicator is that we know at all; the leak on this matter came from NSA employees who believed that the program was of shaky legality.

And no, an incorrect interpretation of the law is not mutually exclusive of breaking the law. If that interpretations leads to action, then that action can potentially break the law, if the right conditions are met.

On the subject of pulling over speeders, your people seem to be arguing that a die hard Yankees fan shouldn’t pull over somebody with a Red Sox sticker, because that would be partisan. You don’t really address the legality of any non-warranted search and seizures, instead trying to make it a difference of interpretation, even though no successful interpretation of the fourth amendment has shown the administration’s argument to be Kosher.

Gonzales basically has engaged in the same kind of wordplay that got Clinton in trouble, and his distinction is likely no more valid than Clinton’s distinction between oral sex and the missionary variety. Even now The Director of National Intelligence indicates that the program in question was just one of many approved. He, too, hair-splits about what was and was not part of the Program.

What we have here, though, are a multitude of inconsistent stories coming out of the administration, each with its own definition of what the program is and isn’t, who was responsible for what, and what’s still going on even today.

Looking at your link concerning FISA, I hate to inform you that your understanding of our position is lacking if you think we’ve moved much of anywhere. Our position was always that we were willing to legislate to adapt the analog-era FISA laws to the new digital times, so that warranted surveillance could be done against our enemies. It was never our position that we wanted to let our enemies in this country, citizen or not, go un-noticed. We just wanted folks to have to justify who they were looking in on, not simply have this super-secret power they could use as they please on us.

The whole Gonzales thing does not help matters. The one thing many American have feared, is that we will trade off freedom for security. The only way to keep that from happening is to maintain the checks and balances that force those looking for terrorists to keep their eye on that ball, and not use their new powers to other ends.

Your notion that accusations of perjury against Gonzales are discredited don’t hold water. You can hold onto your partisan democrat opinion pieces all you want to, because the folks at the FBI think Gonzales perjured himself.

Mueller, who was not in the hospital room, spoke to Ashcroft right after Gonzales left and testified he took notes about the incident. Fedarcyk said that appeared to be insurance against a White House counterattack.

“Usually you take notes to protect yourself. He used them to throw Gonzales under the bus. That’s huge,” Fedarcyk said.

“This is not partisan politics. It’s a bold, strategic, calculated move.”

There’s no confusion here, for the folks at the FBI.

The real question here is how we can expect an Attorney General to function having disastrously mishandled his relationships with not merely Democrats, but even the heads of his subordinate agencies? How can he lead having alienated and publically sunk the image of so many within the department? And how does he have any credibility when the head of the FBI thinks he’s a fricking liar!

Let’s talk about what you wish the facts were: you wish Attorney General Gonzales could do his job. Fact is, he’s done a heck of a job, brownie style, and the time has come to replace his leadership with a more competent, less ideological individual.

“he’s done a heck of a job, brownie style, and the time has come to replace his leadership with a more competent, less ideological individual.”

Stephen Daugherty,

I agree, but………..these terms, “the time has come to replace his leadership with a more competent, less ideological individual”, really need to be applied to GW Bush.

I mean look, Bush gave us Rumsfeld’s head on a stick and now we have a new Sec of Def doing Bush’s bidding. Alberto is only a symptom of what really ails us. Until Bush and Cheney are gone nothing will really improve.

Sadly we can’t make that happen until January ‘09.

It’s still important to pursue any and all violations just to set a precedent, but we won’t accomplish much until Bush and Cheney are gone.

Remer -
“I understand the perceived need to be a relativist, no truth or facts, right or wrong, only anarchy of opinion and interpretation of events for the sake of maintaining one’s status as cheerleader for the home team. This kind of rationalization in the face of cognitive dissonance is participated in by a substantial portion of our society. It’s a free country.”

That’s a nice piece of prose, but it doesn’t answer the question. You were accused of playing loose with the facts. Your response is that the other person doesn’t believe there should be any facts. That doesn’t answer the question of why you believe them to be factual since evidence has been given which seems to disprove your “facts”. I thought you above this…but in fact, you have just proved his LO’s point. Nice.

Woody Mena:

No, it is not obstruction of justice because even if you fire an attorney General, open investigations continue unabated.

Case in point: When Clinton fired ALL the Attorneys General, including the one investigating Webb Hubbel (you remember him? No agenda for Clinton there, right?) the investigation continued and if you are brave enough to recall the outcome, you will understand that just firing an AG does not stop what they were doing when fired.

“Seems that you’re perfectly ready to live with kangaroo courts of the kind that typify police states, so long as the victims are those with whom you have partisan beefs.”

LO,

The heated debate between you and David R. Remer made me take a second look to see what the hoopla is about. Well………your statement about “kangaroo courts” is a perfect place to start. The Democratic Congress’ opposition to “kangaroo courts” is one of the big reasons for these hearings.

The overt politicization of the offices of the US Attorneys is a perfect example of “kangaroo courts” in practice. If in fact a US Attorney has placed his/her career in jeopardy by pursuing the investigation and/or prosecution of Republicans or because they failed to pursue the investigation and/or prosecution of Democrats rather than following the rule of law regardless of political affiliation, whooooaaaaa—————Houston—-we have a problem!

What’s happening in Congress now could hardly be called a “kangaroo court”. For instance Sara Taylor had her attorney seated right next to her. No one has been forced to appear without access to legal counsel.

What I believe will unfold is a battle over the legal constraints of executive privilege. How is that a bad thing? Just imagine either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich being elected president. Would you want them to have the same unrestrained executive privilege that Bush has displayed? Or, for that matter even Hillary?

We’re treading on very unsteady ground ……… a change from three co-equal branches of government to one branch that trumps the other two!

LO, you’re playing games. Gonzalez would be proud. First, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere and as Stephen D. just pointed out, the courts have not ruled on the legality of the administration’s warrantless wiretapping of U.S. persons. I hope you don’t repeat that falsehood again. Second, the issue is not about how the executive branch “interpreted” FISA; it’s that it disregarded it altogether. What the administration claims is that the Congressional authorization of force implicity provides the right to forego even the barest overight provided by the FISA court. It used to claim this minimum and in some cases retroactive oversight was a burden; that claim was so absurd the administration doesn’t make it any more.

In terms of statutory law, the administration must first claim that the AUMF provides the right to engage in warrantless wiretapping. Then it must claim that this authorization supercedes the very clearly stated FISA. The courts are extremely unlikely to uphold the administration’s interpretation because of the doctrine that if an ambiguity exists, specific language overrides general language. FISA is very specific on the procedures that must be followed to engage in wiretapping. The power the administration claims it derives from AUMF for domestic warrantless wiretapping is not specific — indeed, it contains no such language; the administration claims it implies that power. One district judge has already ruled that the domestic warrantless wiretapping was illegal, but the full Circuit turned overturned on the grounds that the plaintiff’s could not prove they were victims. Indeed, one can see why the administration would not release the names of targets even if it has concluded they are not involved in terrorist activities.

The other Constitutional remedy lies with Congress. It can trial and convict high officials for high crimes.

Don, was a nice piece of prose, wasn’t it? Thank you. As for answering the question, Stephen D. and Kansas Dem have done this better than I could have. I will just add my name to their replies.

What I believe will unfold is a battle over the legal constraints of executive privilege. How is that a bad thing?

It’s not necessarily a bad thing at all, but it’s also very likely that this battle will in fact STRENGTHEN executive privilege in the long run. Have you stopped to consider what happens if this ends up the Supreme Court and the administration wins, as I suspect they would?

Has Bush really used “unrestrained executive,” however? I think not. It’s actually been invoked relatively rarely by this administration—if for no other reason that for most of his term, Bush, unlike his predecessors, has operated with a Congress of his own party. Clinton, remember, was invoking executive privilege right and left over Whitewater, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, “travelgate” and a whole host of matters. In fact, he actually lost in court over his attempts to shield subordinates from testifying in the Jones matter.

Understand that I’m not attacking Clinton here—merely pointing out that Bush’s invocations of executive privilege are hardly unusual. Especially for a president facing a Congress controlled by the opposing party. Nor am I suggesting that Clinton committed any “crime” by invoking it and later being overruled. Unlike others here, I don’t think an administration is guilty of crimes if they’re eventually overruled on their interpretation of a legal question.

Gerrold, I haven’t said that the courts have ruled the wiretapping program legal—merely that they threw out the challenges to it, as you’re aware.

You’re correct about the issues of statutary interpretations that are in play here, but there’s another whole dimension that you haven’t mentioned: the question of Article II of the Constitution. The administration has never maintained that they’re deriving their authority here solely from the laws regarding FISA. If this ends up the Supreme Court, the statutes and the Constitutional questions will (presumably) all be be weighed against each other.

If the administration was overruled at the end of such a process, however, THEN they could be accused of impeachable crimes if they PERSISTED in the program (which seems unlikely, since they’ve already suspended it and Congress seem poised to give them new statutory authorities in this area anyway).

Whether any of us agree with the administration’s former position on this issue or not, they at least attempted to craft a very narrowly defined policy about wiretapping which tried to balance various aspects of the law. Note that such wiretapping was never simply “domestic wiretapping” as its opponents maintain. It was very narrowly worded to involve ONLY communications which 1). included at least party who was overseas, 2). involved known affiliates of terrorists and 3). involved a suspected and rapidly unfolding terrorist plot.

If this now suspended policy is later ruled to have been illegal, an overzealous attempt to monitor potential terrorist plots, then so be it. But good luck convincing the American public in a highly publicized impeachment trial that the president should be punished for being too zealous and overreaching in his readings of the law in attempts to protect the American public from terrorist plots. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Bush would absolutely love it if the Democrats tried to throw him into that particular briar patch.

In the responses above we have many examples of SHOCKING … if true.

Re terror surveillance, I believe that the administration acted reasonably to protect the U.S. after September 11. Naturally some of what they did turned out not to work or be an overreaction. Big deal. Some people in congress disagree. So far it is a dispute between the President and congress. It is not decided by any means. Congress can investigate. The president can investigate. I suppose anybody can investigate. But angry passion or self righteousness is uncalled for.

Re the attorneys - Dems are investigating. They found things they thinks are significant, but not everybody agrees. What they have is a charge looking for a crime. Again, their self righteousness and passionate intensity is not justified by the facts.

All this reminds me of fitzmas. The Dems proudly raved and swore that the investigation would turn up something really terrible. When it turned up nothing, they just kept on saying they had something.

Or maybe the Ohio election returns. When all the lawyers and investigators turned up nothing, they assumed the fact that there was an investigation (that they made) was evidence of wrongdoing.

All the things the Dems say would be shocking … if true. IF is the key word. If wishes were horses, beggars (and Dems) would ride. Oh how they would ride.

Kansas

What unrestrained power? The executive can hire or fire these attorneys. Congress controls the budget. The courts decide constitutionality. The constitution does not envision that the president knuckle under to congress and congress obviously has not knuckled under to the president.

“Have you stopped to consider what happens if this ends up the Supreme Court and the administration wins, as I suspect they would?”

LO,

I really can’t imagine one single judge on SCOTUS ruling in Bush’s favor on this. Not even Scalia. The concept of executive privilege is not even mentioned in the United States Constitution. The SCOTUS never even considered the concept until the Nixon tape controversy.

I suspect if SCOTUS ruled in favor of Bush on this point that the next time we Dems have control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress we’d pursue re-stacking the court. It’s been done before.

The original SCOTUS consisted of six justices. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. After many shenanigans the number of Justices on the SCOTUS was once again set at nine in 1869. I’m sure you know about FDR’s “court packing plan”, so it can happen!

http://tinyurl.com/57z8m

I’m sure you’ve seen me mention before how the pendulum swings. In recent years it swings a bit left and then a bit right, but we have major issues looming in the near future: foreign policy (especially the middle east), entitlements, over 17% lacking health coverage, peak oil, income disparity, etc.

Sooner or later the lid will blow and then we’ll see extreme swings……………my guess is left first, then far right, then whoever survives will swing left European style. But I’m no soothsayer by a long shot.

Kansas

It goes back at least to Grover Cleveland in 1885. He also removed a U.S. attorney. Congress demanded files related to the firing. Cleveland refused saying they were executive acts “based upon considerations addressed to me alone.” Nothing came of it. Congress backed down recognizing that he was within his rights.

Re peak oil - peak at what price? We reached peak oil a long time ago at $10 a barrel. We may never reach peak at $100. There is no such thing as peak oil. Oil is available at a price. At some point that price will be too high and we will not use much oil anymore.

we’d pursue re-stacking the court. It’s been done before.

PLEASE do, it was one of the lowest parts of the democratic party, made even worse by the SCOTUS backing down in their rightfully calling most of the ‘new deal’ as unconstitutional.

In fact, had FDR not backed down from his threat it is likely he would not have been re-elected. So, please, go on…

Jack,

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I assume you’ve read my posts both on this thread and Stephen’s thread in the blue column so I’ll try one more analogy just for you.

Imagine some gangster, drug dealer, bank robber, etc. saying, “hey they started investigating me just because I bought a new Cadillac, there’s no law against buying a new Cadillac”!

True enough, there isn’t, but if everyone knows you’re living on disability and food stamps they might be suspicious! If the proper authorities fail to investigate they’re NOT doing their job.

One of the “jobs” assigned to our Congress is oversight of the executive branch although not enumerated in the Constitution. “Oversight also derives from the many and varied express powers of the Congress in the Constitution. It is implied in the legislature’s authority, among other powers and duties, to appropriate funds, enact laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, and impeach and remove from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers. Congress could not reasonably or responsibly exercise these powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight

Bottom line: Congress is doing their job. You may not approve of the job they’re doing but there’s very little you can do about it. You can write letters to your congresspersons just like I do. Hell, I write letters to Kennedy and Biden, properly identifying myself as a non-constituent, just because I know they ‘get-r-done’ or at least try.

In this case ‘Berto and others have left a trail of breadcrumbs that’s hard not to follow. Clinton’s “breadcrumbs” were a stain on a dress. Bush & Co’s. breadcrumbs include the fired attorneys!

“So, please, go on…”

Rhinehold,

Nowhere do I defend that tactic. My point was that the pendulum will swing from left to right to left ad nauseam. Such is the effect of dissatisfaction among the electorate in a democracy.

Would you prefer a dictatorship, or possibly a monarchy? IMO Bush and Cheney are trying very hard to move us in that direction. But, I just know you’ll disagree.

LO et al.,

We’re getting into rather arcane matters of law, so for those interested I want to link to two letters written to Congress.

The first is from the Assistant Attorney General outlining the administration’s legal argument for NSA’s secret spy program. It was sent to Congress shortly after the program was revealed by the NYT.

The second letter to Congress was sent by a number of Constitutional scholars arguing that the administration’s legal arguments were untenable. It was sent shortly after the first letter.

Contained within these two letters are all the arguments (of which I am aware) for and against the legality the program.

LO, I think you are right that the more important administration defense is the Article II one; I truly believe the statutory defense hasn’t a real chance of standing up in court. The administration argues that implicit in AUMF is the power to engage in domestic warrantless wiretapping; yet we know that Congress specifically denied the administration’s attempt to secure “war-making authority within the United States.” I also believe the Article II defense won’t stand up for reasons detailed in the second letter. I want SCOTUS to address the arguments, but I doubt it will anytime soon. If and when it does, I have zero doubt that it would not accept either the statutory or Article II defense. At issue is the generally recognized power of Congress to have broad powers to legislate as it sees fit in the domestic arena (Article I) and, in addition, to make rules and regulations for the land and naval forces, while the president as commander in chief has broad powers in the foreign arena (implicit in Article II). A plain reading of Article I and II says that Congress has the power to raise, organize, and establish rules and regulations for the armed forces, and that the president is commander in chief.

Warrantless wiretapping of foreign sources is not an issue; regardless of whether the president has that Constitutional power, Congress has already authorized it. The issue is whether the laws that Congress established regarding domestic issues can be overridden by the commander in chief. Remember, one of the president’s responsibilities is to faithfully execute the laws of the land.

The problem with waiting for SCOTUS to make clear what already seems clear to many Constitutional scholars is that it might take years for a case to reach the court, if ever. If the Circuit Court ruling that such a case can only be brought by an actual victim of domestic warrantless wiretapping prevails, then such a case may never be brought, because all targets are secret. Meanwhile, information obtained from such wiretapping can be passed along to prosecutors of criminal cases — and given that that information, once learned, may be obtained through other means, targets might not be identified that way, either.

What’s the remedy then? One possible solution I recently encountered was for Congress to amend FISA to make it easier for plaintiffs to sue — anyone who could reasonably argue their communications where “chilled” by the possibility that their communications to parties overseas might be monitored without a warrant — journalists, for example. That could override the obstacles that plaintiffs face. I have no doubt that the administration would resist such a provision attached to FISA because I can’t imagine it wants the courts involved. The other remedy is for Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings.

Jack,

The true “peak” regarding oil has much less to do with price than it has to do with how much oil’s inside this big round ball we call the earth and how much damage we’re willing to do to old Mother Earth extracting that last drop of oil.

I have no doubt that society would survive if every oil well on earth dried up tomorrow. It would be a real jolt at the time but it would later be seen as little more than a hiccup in the history books.

Re: “Attorney-gate” I’m done beating my head against the wall. History will decide whether or not this was an important debate. The courts will undoubtedly determine how far it all goes from here.

Would you prefer a dictatorship, or possibly a monarchy? IMO Bush and Cheney are trying very hard to move us in that direction. But, I just know you’ll disagree.

Well, until they try to amend the constitution to allow them to run again, I don’t see how a ‘dictatorship’ or ‘monarchy’ are possible. They may be TRYING to make it easier for their party to retain control, but 1) they are doing a horrible job since the democrats took control of the congress recently and 2) that would make them the same as just about every other administration that has come down the pike, republican and democrat.

But, you know me, always defending Bush… *sigh*

Beirut Vet-
Not quite. You’re still losing the person managing the investigation, in favor of somebody else who might decide things differently, more in line with what the Administration wants.

The fact that Clinton fired everybody makes the explanation that he did so just to curtail one attorney’s investigation more unlikely, as he probably lost people who did his bidding with those who weren’t. It’s the selectivity that makes this a more politicized affair, that there were only certain people fired, who were doing particular things.

LO-
He’s using it to avoid basic questions of what his people were doing, even using it as an excuse for his people to not even show up. Nixon tried that, and it didn’t work.

Clinton did try to keep people from testifying, but I think it’s funny that you’re justifying Bush’s actions by Clintons, when the Republicans cried bloody murder about it. It should be significant that the courts didn’t accept most of Clinton’s arguments in these regards.

There are many reasons why a case will be thrown out. To claim it as a source of vindication is naive, because there are any number of reasons why a lawsuit might be thrown out. The reasons, according to reports, for the ACLU dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the law, but rather whether the ACLU could prove that a program whose actions are national secrets actually hurt them. Since they don’t have clearance for that information, and it is forthcoming from the administration, that’s it.

The idea that the AUMF authorizes warrantless wiretaps on American citizens is poorly supported, the brainchild of John Yoo and others whose work most legal experts hold in low regard. The American Bar Association came down against the whole thing- the national organization of those who practice law. Only a riot or a civil war justifies a suspension of people’s rights.

The constitution also forbids ex post facto laws, which means that you can’t legalize actions that took place before a law was enacted. You also can’t legalize an unconstitutional act. This was domestic wiretapping if even one American citizen was on the line.

I wouldn’t count on Bush’s intentions to save him with the public, because the public think he’s done a poor job of protecting us, and that his actions are doing more harm than good.

Jack-
There’s plenty of damaging evidence out there, and Democrats have been more right than wrong. If you were right, Rove would not have told Matt Cooper, nor Libby Judith Miller that Valerie Wilson Was a CIA employee.

If you were right, there would be no list, no improper contacts between Senator Domenici, Rep. Wilson and David Iglesias.

If you were right, and nothing was the matter, the courts would have ruled that the program was legal, and Alberto Gonzales could have freely admitted to much of it.

We wouldn’t be finding anything out, but we seem to be finding plenty, including the latest revelations about Attorney Brownlee and the management in central Justice.

Why do we keep on finding out these things, if there’s nothing to find out? Why is the director of the FBI’s testimony at odds with his Boss’s?

Stephen D. and Jack,

There is a reality in our humongous federal bureaucracy that is inescapable. Any administration, Democrat or Republican, that thinks it can cut corners and fudge and get away with it for 8 years, is absolutely STUPID !

The reason is simple, its the old maxim we learn as kids, where one kid tells a story (cover up story in the case of federal government), and asks them to pass it along to the next person, but, not tell anyone else. We learn early in life that secrets are not easily kept, and if acting in ways that generate many secrets to be kept becomes a modus operandi, many cats will come out of the bag, each in succession clawing at the open wounds created by the former.

It happened in the Nixon administration. It is happening again. Running huge complex government requires records and tracking of what is transpiring, and the point of records is to communicate. In an adversarial multi-party government, to both try to track what is happening and keep the communications a secret, is a train wreck in the making for any administration that believes secrecy can shield their actions.

It takes a monumentally stupid administrative leader (GW Bush) or, arrogantly defensive one (Nixon), to think they can succeed at this game of cover-up for 8 years. Those below the President take their cues as to management style and tactics from the President, his Chief of Staff, and Political Advisor. The more times they have to say, “keep this under wraps”, the more the management tactic and style percolates down through the entire administration. And the risk of exposure increases geometrically as do the number of managers and employees below the President.

When will they ever learn, Bob Dylan asked, When will they ever learn? These are the risks political parties take in favoring finding an electable candidate over finding a capable one who can survive their office with their Party’s reputation intact. Republicans would do well to look back to Dwight D. Eisenhower, or Gerald Ford for inspiration and model. But, instead they look to Reagan, the man who was eminently electable, but, at best, only average in capability, for their model.

It takes a monumentally stupid administrative leader (GW Bush) or, arrogantly defensive one (Nixon), to think they can succeed at this game of cover-up for 8 years. Those below the President take their cues as to management style and tactics from the President,

I don’t think it is mere coincidence that both Rumsfeld and Cheney were a part of Nixon’s administration.

Kansas
The fundamental flaw in the peak oil idea is the notion that oil is a natural resource unaffected by man. Of course it is a natural resource, but it is valuable only to human societies that have a use for it and that use is to a large extent dictated by the cost. We could burn diamonds for fuel. We do not because they are way to expensive.

Oil can be extracted in a variety of ways, some cheap; others not. We have reached much of the cheap oil. It gets more expensive until at some point it is too expensive to do. The result is that we stop using oil and find replacements. This will not happen all at once. Gradually, as the price rises, we will move to alternatives.

The peak oil idea implies some kind of crisis. This is not true. It also implies that we need to shift from oil right away. This is partly true, although for ecological and geological reasons unrelated to “peak oil”. Absent those concerns, it would be wise to use oil as long as it was low cost alternative and stop as it got more expensive.

Re the drug dealer - if the police started to investigate you because you owned a fancy car, it would be an abuse of power. You cannot have investigation just because somebody w/o a solid reason thinks you are guilty. The Dems do not even have that justification.

I do not have a general problem with investigation. What I object to is the criminalization of politics. Things like FISA or the attorneys are political issues. There may be a right and wrong way to do it, but they are not legal issues.

Re FISA – this one really troubles me. The president was acting to protect the U.S. He may have been wrong or overzealous in his defense of our country, but I can think of no nefarious motive possible for his conduct. The Dems may disagree, saying he went too far or did too much, but their impugning his motives and making it sound evil, is silly and counter productive. Their concern may be justified; their anger is not.

Gerrold

You are trying to short circuit the process. You are assuming that quick action is needed because the president is wrong. That is a fact not currently decided. There is a disagreement re whether he is right or wrong.

Congress can try to enact the remedies you propose. It is their political decision. I have some confidence in the process in the long run. I wish congress would get to the task of amending the laws and either provoke a legal incident to help decide the case or make changes. In either case, the terrorist surveillance program is too important to be a political football.

Stephen

It seems that Rove confirming what Armitage said was bad judgment. That is not the same as criminal and evidently Fitzpatrick did not consider it a breach of the law, since he did not indict either Rove or Armitage. The Dems tried to make a mistake in judgment a crime. They were wrong about that.

David

The bureaucracy is like a swamp. It does useful things, but it is hard to manage. You assume, however, that Bush is doing something dishonest. This is not in evidence. When I look at this situation, I see many of the same mistakes and drawbacks inherent with running a very large political/bureaucratic operation. The Dems amplify them and make them look nefarious, but really have not turned up much. They have discovered the organizational equivalent of snow in Minneapolis. What a revelation.

This is a bad trend. The Republicans did it to Clinton and they were convinced (and had evidence) that he was a crook. They were mistaking politics/bureaucracy with crime. Now the Dems are doing it, only with more vigour.

Jack,

The remedies I discuss are not short-circuiting the process. They are as legitimate and Constitutional as waiting to see if, somehow, the issue can ever be addressed by SCOTUS with the cards so stacked against plaintiffs. I do consider the issue urgent because it involves fundamental questions of separation of powers and civil liberties. There is disagreement only because the administration is using arguments that are extraordinarily over reaching. Yes, that’s my opinion, but it’s also the opinion of, I would assert, the vast majority of Constitutional scholars. As one scholar says, impeachment is not a Constitutional crisis; it is the solution to a Constitutional crisis.

Wrong, Jack. Your comments reflect partisan blinders or denial of the facts. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, that if this were a Democratic president you would be making the same calls and supporting the same actions Democrats are now making against Bush.

If however, I am wrong, then your view of government is corrupt such that corruption of it appears as normal and acceptable behavior. Transparency, oversight, and checks and balances, are all intended by our founding fathers, in many writings, and GW Bush et.al. have grievously violated these precepts and intents, as well as the laws like FISA, Geneva Convention, and an extension of executive power enjoyed by the likes of Adolph Hitler, Nikita Kruschev, and Putin today.

And the more Republicans defend Bush et. al, the more they lose favor with the public at large. Which raises a real quandary for the GOP. If they are unwilling to become the party of the people, they are left only with becoming the party of slight of hand in order to acquire power and abuse the system centered upon law and the people. Is this the reputation the GOP wishes to carry forward in America? It’s a serious question. One which the GOP should weigh and consider very carefully while there is still a little time to rectify their reputation.

Many Republicans in Government are denouncing this reputation, and one or a couple more are added to the roll each month. From Sen. Arlen Specter, John Warner to the NY representative sitting on the Military Appropriations Committee, (forget his name), but, these persons are vindicating their integrity and protecting their respect for the Constitution by publicly observing how the Bush administration is badly managing affairs in the GOP name.

But, so far, there are too few to rescue the GOP’s reputation which is sinking like a stone. Republicans like that hypocrite Rep. Lamar Smith (R) who this week denounced the Ethics Reform bill as too weak just before voting for it, after opposing such reform for the last 14 years, are killing the last vestiges of respect for, and faith in, the GOP by the public at large.

Republicans have, as the Japanese did on Dec. 7, 1941, awakened a sleeping giant in the American public, and they are increasingly, and ever more fervently, opposing the GOP and all that it has come to stand for these 6 years. You watch, there is going to be another rout of Republicans in 2008, and the GOP led by the Bush administration’s actions, is solely responsible.

Keep your eye on California where a Republican civilian is trying to get referendum going on changing California’s election law so that 19 of the district’s electorate votes can go Republican in 2008. If the GOP doesn’t stop this guy, they are going to lose much of the independent vote that supported Arnold in California, and there goes the GOP’s gains in that very important state as well.

Slight of hand works only when folks aren’t watching as in 1992 and 2002. The American public is watching now. Your party can no longer gerrymander its way out of minority status or alter states election laws to retain or acquire power. The people are hip to the tricks and won’t stand for it, but, they will remember the attempts.

Your party won’t get its act together if its supporters refuse to hold them to a higher standard of accountability and public representation. Crying big government or big spending after growing government and spending beyond all tolerable bounds, rings hollow and deceitful. And crying Constitutionality against Democrats will simply hit the floor with a dull thud.

Jack-
As I recall, Fitzgerald has given the sense through multiple statements that he believes there’s more to this than just somebody lying to him. As others have told Loyal Opposition, just because somebody declines to go through with a prosecution in a case like this doesn’t mean that a crime didn’t take place, or something people would think of as one.

Fitzgerald, A Republican appointed by Bush, stated outright that Valerie Wilson was a covert agent at the time. This was his legal determination. It’s clear from the evidence that he believed that Rove and Libby were part of the leak. You folks are quick to say that because he did not prosecute that he didn’t think a crime was committed, but his own words have him claiming that Libby’s obstruction of justice, his perjury, “threw sand in the umpires eyes”. With a lot of the evidence we see around, including his closing statements and evidence revealed of Cheney and other’s correspondence with him, it’s obvious that he thought things went deeper, and that there was a deliberate effort to leak.

Legal judgments have a formal logic that sometimes doesn’t quite match with what people would consider an appropriate informal conclusion to draw. Evidence can be thrown out on formal grounds that positively indicates a certain conclusion is true. A law, interpreted correctly, can lead to a determination that is counter to people’s sense of the law’s intent, an outcome that people would find unjust with a reasonable interpretation of the facts.

Fitzgerald established significant facts over the course of his investigation and prosecution, facts that remain true, and should be included in any analysis of what went on.

Wilson was a covert agent. Wilson’s employment as a CIA agent was a classified secret. She and her husband did not divulge this secret to others who were not cleared for it. All these points flatly contradict what many Republicans asserted as true, in fact what many still claim as true.

Rove and Libby revealed this information to reporters not cleared for it, and confirmed it as well. By the definition of leaking, that is to reveal secret information not publically known to the press or public, what Rove and Libby did qualifies. Since there don’t seem to be any perjury allegations arising against Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, we can assume that Fitzgerald believes their testimony to be truthful and correct to the best of their knowledge. Since both revealed this information before it was publically known, Libby in fact before Novak was told by Armitage about it, it would take an unreasonable stretching of the facts to say that these two did not leak Valerie Wilson’s Identity to the press. The fact that they did so to reporters who they met with makes it seem all the more deliberate.

What we run into, and the likely reason more prosecutions were not forthcoming, are the technical aspects of the law. As I understand it, the law was geared towards those trying to help our nation’s enemies by such divulgence. As loathesome as the act of outing a covert agent is, it can hardly be argued that Libby, Rove, or especially Armitage, outed her to help another country get the upper hand over ours.

The law also requires that a person know that what they said was that big of a secret at the time, and Armitage in particular claimed that he didn’t know this.

At the end of the day, those who wrote the laws regarding this case found it unthinkable that a politically motivated administration could be so cavalier and/or cynical as to reveal the employment of an agent to the press. That is the only reason why nobody was charged for the leak itself: because the law was not written to punish this kind of leak, for the reasons it was done.

On the facts, Democrats can logically establish that most of what we believed to be true, was true. The only problem was that the law was not written to protect agents from political insiders looking to bolster their boss’s political fortunes. If Armitage is telling the truth, what does it say about this administration that such classified information is so carelessly thrown around that people like Armitage pick it up without knowing it’s sensitivity?

This administration has a very dysfunctional vision of what proper secrecy is. The recent revelation of the list of those who the Vice President had meet with his Energy Task force, was a bit of a disappointment, because virtually none of the names on this list, which the White House fought tooth and nail to keep secret, were folks we wouldn’t have already guessed were invited to this fossil-fuel friendly White House.

There a number of theories of why they would try and keep secret something like that, when it was so obvious. I have a twofold view on it: One, they thrive on uncertainty. People can guess all they want to, they just want their opponents to keep guessing, and not know for sure.

Two, though, it gives them the power to do things their way, and to delay other people from responding to their decisions.

This tendency, though, has had some seriously negative effects on the administration. If you want people to really pay attention, tell them you’ve got a secret. Secret are kept to manipulate people. Secrets are kept to avoid being caught and/or punished for mistakes and malfeasances. Secrets are kept to keep control of the situation from devolving to others.

But there’s another side to it, one with far worse consquences: secrets are impediments to the flow of information, and that information is often what people need to know to get things moving right.

Secrets played a role in both the rise and fall of Enron, and much of the mischief its energy policies inflicted on people. A lot of people in California believed that their power generation was insufficient in 2001, when in fact they had more than they needed, and generators were being kept offline. Investors believed that the company was sound, but only because of the lengths the company went through to deceive the market, measures that were not altogether unique to Enron.

This is the real bad trend, the real problem, when it comes to the way that the Bush administration deals with us as a country. Bush is very paranoid about having his deliberations exposed to the public. He had his gubernatorial papers sent to his father’s library in a successful attempt to keep them from being made public, as is customary for a Texas Governor. He has been brutal about leakers, and has set this government on a pace to expand the bounds of what is kept secret, even to the point of taking material already declassified and part of published reports, books, and articles and reclassifying it.

And now, presented with serious oversight for the first time in his administration, this President is stonewalling across the board, even using executive privilege to justify his people not even showing up when given a subpeona.

Can you honestly tell me just what qualifies all these dealings for Executive Privilege? Because honestly, I’m getting the impression that this just seems to be a blanket claim of immunity from oversight, rather than a true privileging of closely held advice to the president.

Moreover, there’s a big problem with the rationale: should executive branch officials really have the privilege of not having to worry what the public or congress will think of what they’re telling the president? So far, the secrecy of this Presidency has been a perpetual breeding ground for trouble. I don’t feel that the secrecy of this administration, and it’s disconnect from the public, from common sense, from its duties to the people are unconnected.

I think you have to start asking yourself whether you want to be kept out of the loop as to what your politicians are doing in your name.

I hear a crash in another room in my house. My three year old daughter comes running into the kitchen. I ask her what happened. She looks at me guiltily and tells me nothing happened. I don’t know about you but I’m damn sure going in that room to see what’s been broken.
With the current administration it is not a question of whether something has been broken or not. It is a question of how much damage has been done and how much continues to be done. I want to know - and I say this: If you don’t want to know what damage may have been done to our constitution and country, who’s the Patriot?

I wish congress would get to the task of amending the laws and either provoke a legal incident to help decide the case or make changes. In either case, the terrorist surveillance program is too important to be a political football.

Congress has attempted this many times, or at least the Democrats in Congress have tried to address this situation. The Republicans either thwart their attempts, or when questioned about details the President declares executive privilege. When cases have been brought to the courts, the President has declared that all evidence is “state secrets” or he has authorization through the War Powers Act. Due to lack of evidence, the court cases so far have been thrown out. When Gonzales was questioned why the issue over FISA wasn’t resolved in Congress he said:

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We’ve had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be — that was not something we could likely get…

It is a political decision, it is also a constitutional decision, and this Administration with the help of Republicans has sought to circumvent or at least prolong this process at every step.

Stephen, it really doesn’t matter if Fitzgerald thought there might be more to the story. He is not a judge or a jury but a prosecutor. If he has a case, he should bring it, especially when he was granted resources, authorities and advantages that no prosecutor but him in our system of justice EVER gets.

What a prosecutor believes but can’t prove or doesn’t bother trying to prove is an opinion with no more merit than anybody’s else’s. Mr. Nifong reportedly still believes that “something happened at that party.” Nifong and Fitzgerald’s unproven theories plus $2 will get you a cup of coffee.

Fitzgerald himself claimed that he was the functional equivalent in this case of the Attorney General, and there’s strong evidence, based on his jailing of members of the press, that he was got just a little bit drunk on his own power.

As for the White House claiming “blanket immunity” from Congressional oversight, that is simply not true. In fact, just today, one of Karl Rove’s aides, Scott Jennings, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee over the attorney firings. Several others, including Gonzales, have already testified under oath. If anyone is claiming unlimited powers here, it’s not the White House. The question now is whether we’re going to maintain ANY separation of powers at all, or just hand all of the powers of the judiciary and the executive branch to congress in order to facilitate unlimited partisan show trials on the floor of congress.

LO-
I don’t know if you noticed, but Fitzgerald convicted Libby about lying about not being a leaker, and not getting his information from administration sources. Cheney’s note to Libby about this was one of the pieces of evidence.

The whole case makes no sense if you could not link Libby to the leak.

I don’t know why you see fit to compare a well-respected attorney with several high-profile conviction under his belt and reputation for tight cases with some two-bit fraud like Nifong. Nifong can’t even prove there was a rape. Fitzgerald not only proved there was a leak, a necessary prerequisite for proving that Libby lied about the leak, but he also proved that the information was shared with him by folks at the highest levels. He brought witnesses here and in the grand jury who indicated that more than one administration official was disseminating the information.

If Fitzgerald was drunk on his own power, why the hell did he leave most of the leakers alone? That he made the claims he did, yet did not prosecute others for the leaks when the law was unclear on the matter shows restraint, not drunkness on power.

But I guess anybody who dares to challenge the adminstration is getting too big for their britches in your eyes.

Stephen, loyal opposition whether it be Democrat or Republican, will defend party action right or wrong. They place a higher priority on party loyalty than they do on good governance or rule of law, or ethical and responsible behavior. It’s a team sport with loyal opposition win or lose, and literally, if the country loses, so be it, they stayed loyal to their team.

It’s an interesting piece of psychology that drives loyal opposition fans to utterly reject criticism of their team, regardless of merit or warning of failed consequences, and predisposes them to accept without analysis any critique of their opposition’s team. Cognitive Dissonance and rationalization are such folk’s primary defense mechanisms, and being subconscious adaptive mechanisms, they really are largely incapable and debilitated from altering their behavior, which makes rational argument or debate a largely futile action, unless and until some other internal overriding goal or need becomes a motivator. (Finding their loyalty tied to a continually losing team, for example, which inevitably affects their self esteem.)

This dynamic is seen in American politics and sociology of Congressional races throughout the last century until the Newt Gingrich crowd devised a plan to instill the pride of joining a winning GOP in 1992 and 1994. But, after 40 years in the wilderness as the minority party, the GOP was unable to act like a winning party of the people, and unable to champion the people’s causes. And in 2006 it was back to the wilderness, for perhaps another 40 years, relying on loyal opposition psychology to keep them in the game, at all.

There is a lesson here for the Democratic Party, in the face of a rising tide of independent voters, if the Democratic Party leadership has the acumen to take it to heart. It will prove to be the gravest of mistakes for the Dem. Leadership to interpret the GOP rout coming in 2008, supported in large part by Independent voters experiencing a lack of choice, as some sort of lock on power for decades to come regardless of failures to heed the demands of Independent and growing coalitions of 3rd party voters.

If, and its still a pretty big if, another party emerges to replace the GOP as Democratic contender, Democrats could easily find themselves having to rely upon their own loyal opposition to even stay in the political arena for decades as a minority party. And it largely rests on Democrats actions on S.S., Medicare/Medicaid, national and trade deficits over the course of the next 8 to 12 years. Fail to save our economic future in the face of the entitlement/retirement crisis, and the big if I mention above, becomes significantly smaller.

David, I feel the need to defend the term “loyal opposition” against how you’re defining it. After all, it is my screen name!

To be part of the/a loyal opposition does not mean that you are simply loyal to your own party. It means that you are against those who control the government but loyal to the government itself.

In my case, it means being opposed to most of the Democrats who control Congress, as well many of the policies of the administration, while remaining strongly loyal to our political system and our principles of government.

Gerrold

Your remedies are not the short cut. The short cut is that you are sure that terrorist surveillance programs or the attorneys is a crime. If Dems agree, I think they should try those remedies you advocate. Let them decide that way.

David

One reason I advocate smaller government is that it is impossible for any large bureaucratic/political organization to operate efficiently. It is no surprise that our Federal government has never managed it. There are roles that government must play. There are some it can play and lots that it cannot. Unfortunately, people demand what they cannot get and politicians pretend to be able to comply.

When the public watches closely, they will become less enamored with the Dems. Then they will make the same mistake of thinking they can throw the rascals out. They will refuse to recognize that what we face is a systemic problem.

BTW – I would not hold my breath for that route in 2008. The Dem controlled congress has lower rates than the president and they still have more than a year to disappoint the public.

The Dems also will not address SS. They do not want to admit there is even a problem. When they figure it out, their solution will be to raise taxes. Our kids will get stuck for it and I hope that they will not tolerate it. Us old guys should expect to work longer and save more. Tough on us.

Stephen

Fitzgerald can say what he wants. His deeds tell more truth than his words. He KNEW who first leaked and did not indict. That was not hidden from him. Novak told him and Armitage admitted it. He knew it even before he started to investigate. So if he knew who did the crime he was investigating and did not indict, he clearly had no case.

Or maybe he had the leakers, but they were not the ones he wanted. In our law, we go after people for what they do, not who they are.

Cube

The Dems in congress can vote to impeach. They do not need Republican votes. Bring it on. If they REALLY believe all that BS, their honorable course is clear. If they do not do it, that says a lot about them and what they really think.

Gernerally, i believe that what a person does is a more truthful representation of what he thinks than what he says.

Jack said: “One reason I advocate smaller government is that it is impossible for any large bureaucratic/political organization to operate efficiently.”

That’s bullcrap. Toyota does great. The IRS was a model of efficiency until Bush and Republicans got control and greatly increased its costs through duplicative work by contracting out to the private sector for collections.

When the shareholders DEMAND efficiency and hold management accountable for it, efficiency is normally achieved. The voters are the federal government’s shareholders. They have neither demanded efficiency nor held elected representatives accountable for it on election day.

Then there’s legal efficiency which is truthfully efficient, and illegal efficiency like Bush’s end run around FISA, which cost his administration and our efforts seriously in the complications of dealing with the illegality issue.

It is up to the people to demand it, and hold politicians accountable for it on election day. Then, we will see unparalleled efficiency in federal government as far as our Constitution will permit, which would be, of course, the optimum achievable.

Loyal Opposition, I think your comments throughout this web site speak accurately of your definition of loyal opposition. Actions usually speak louder than defensive explanations.

David,
“The IRS was a model of efficiency until Bush and Republicans got control and greatly increased its costs through duplicative work by contracting out to the private sector for collections.”

You just lost ALL credibility with that statement.

tomd-
I know you’d like us to share your assumption on that, but would you care to back your assessment with some facts and good argument?

Jack-
I just pointed out to you his deeds. Nifong sought indictments and convictions against three people on minimal evidence, and did so poor a job in his investigation that he was eventually disbarred. Legal experts thought he was a fricking idiot, the way he handled it.

Fitzgerald, on the other hand, did not sensationalize things. He built a very basic and persuasive factual case against the person who basically lied his ass off to the investigators. He proved the leak side of the case sufficiently to get jurors to believe that Libby had something to lie about.

Logically, Libby could not have been convicted of lying to the grand jury about when he learned the information and from whom, and about the fact that it was sensitive and not widely known, unless Fitzgerald had proven the opposite was true.

Why is one solid conviction a runaway investigation? Whitewater was a runaway investigation. It darted back and forth between the original scandal, a twelve year old real estate deal, the Vince Foster suicide (where he insinuated murder but quickly dropped the matter), the Paula Jones case, and finally ending up at the president lying about an affair he had had during the investigation. He wasted forty million taxpayer dollars, and the whole thing took the length of the Clinton administration. Fitzgerald’s investigation remained focused on the events surrounding the leak itself. Libby was convicted for lying about his role in it.

How many Mad-dog prosecutors come out and say that they were frustrated in their investigation; I’d think standard operating procedure would be righteous spiels.

I think a lot of these shorthands are just empty rhetoric. You call something a witchhunt to make it seem unfair. You compare somebody to Nifong to insinuate that their investigation was unfounded, that there was no crime. You talk about mad-dog prosecutor when you don’t like that an investigation is going places inconvenient to those you think are righteous citizens.

But how about, for once, backing up these comparisons, these analogies, with the premises and logic that would make them legitimate?

Jack,

I am sure that murder, burglary, extortion, and driving under the influence are crimes. When there is evidence of such deeds, I want criminal trials to determine guilt or innocence.

According to FISA, which was created after SCOTUS suggest Congress legislate on wiretapping issues and was created with the understanding that sometimes we would be at war, warrantless wiretapping of citizens is a crime. The administration defends its actions using arguments that most Consitutional scholars find specious. So, exactly, how is it a shortcut on my part to want the virtually insurmountable barriers to plaintiffs lowered? Or how is it a shortcut to want Congress to use its power to try and if necessary convict?

Good grief, Jack.

Jack,

One thing is VERY clear from this administration and the reactions both in front of Congress and by their actions:

They are hiding a great deal of the truth!

This is obvious to even the least astute of us watching these things!

Yet, you make political hay by making these subjectively biased accusations!

Are you so proud that you cannot see the forest for the trees?

It’s disengenuous to compare Clinton’s firings with Gonzales’. The timing and reasons were very different in ways that really matter. When Gonzales fired these judges it was obviously because they weren’t towing the party line on specific votes. Democrats and Republicans alike dislike him, because he lies, obviously, and has really done disservice to the nation by filling up the justice department with green party hacks.

tomd, your comment reflects a serious ignorance of the topic and what was said. But, if you don’t want to research it, but, instead knee jerk a response, that’s fine. Ignoring facts is a favorite past time of many Americans, so you have lots of company.

David, instead of telling tomd that he is ignorant and that he should go out and “research” what is actually a fairly absurd claim on your part, why don’t you supply even the tiniest scrap of proof to support your own knee-jerk response? Those who live in glass houses… you know the rest.

YOU claimed that “the IRS was a model of efficiency until Bush and Republicans got control and greatly increased its costs through duplicative work by contracting out to the private sector for collections.”

That’s a very big claim. That the IRS is or ever has been a “model of efficiency” is laughable on its face. But to go further and say that the Republicans and Bush “greatly increased its costs” through “duplicative work” by “contracting out to the private sector for collections” requires several layers of proof. For one thing, outsourcing to private collections began in 1997—who was President then? Bush?

I wish that instead of just regarding your opinions as “facts” and accusing others of partisanship or ignorance for not buying into them, you’d show a little more respect for the word “fact” actually means. Or at the very least, not insult those who don’t believe that the facts are what you claim they are simply because you label them as “facts.”

LO,

Perhaps you should notify Wikipedia to correct this:

“Outsourcing collections”
“In September 2006, the IRS started to outsource the collection of taxpayers debts to private debt collection agencies.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irs

KansasDem, after reading into a bit more, I do see that the program became more expansive in September of 2006, but the first time I heard of the IRS using private collections was in 1997. In any case, if we use Sept. 06 as the starting date, then that means (according to David at least) that the IRS was “a model of efficiency” for five years under the Republican Congress and Bush. And the time that it went to pot (Sept 06 to now) has mostly been a time of Democratic Congressional control.

Now I know why the red column is asking for more writers. People like Jack continue to paint issues like this as a red vs. blue issue rather than a right vs. wrong issue, and in so doing keep perpetuating the ugly, vitriolic partisanship of politics as usual that has diminished our moral authority throughout the world and here at home.

Anyone who can defend or deflect accountability away from the incompetent bufoon know as Alberto Gonzales simply astounds me. Worse, Jack’s hack partisan spin of bashing the democrats after the fact is a pitiful, albeit expected, example of someone who will defend his tribe at all costs rather than admitting to the truth that the majority of Americans so plainly see.

Then again, since when has Jack or this administration cared one whit about what real Americans think?

As for the White House claiming “blanket immunity” from Congressional oversight, that is simply not true. In fact, just today, one of Karl Rove’s aides, Scott Jennings, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee over the attorney firings.

When asked repeatedly about the events surrounding the attorney firings, Jennings responds:

“Senator pursuant to the president’s assertion of executive privilege, I must respectfully decline to answer your question at this time.”

Good thing you claim to be non-partisan, or I would suspect that your defense of this administration was motivated by bias.

Jack

I’ve never called for impeachment hearings, not that it might be a good idea. My comments have been primarily about FISA and the illegal wiretapping. But if the president were impeached, whom would that leave as president? Nah, I rather keep the “idiot” than replace him with “stupidly arrogant.”

Loyal Opp, and tomd, my sources are reputable. One is the IRS oversight board which reports the 2007 IRS proposed budget was $11.3 billion a 6.9 percent increase over ‘06’s appropriation.

The IRS recently disclosed that the nation’s annual tax gap — the difference between what is owed and what is collected annually — stands at $345 billion, (more than 1/3 trillion annually) and some experts believe it could be even more. This is in no small part to the 10 and 20 cents on the dollar collections and amnesty for taxpayers owing over $10,000 to the IRS, (can you say upper middle class and private business owners, which Republicans authorized such breaks and amnesty for?).

Cato Institute reports: “Yet, since 2000, the IRS
budget has increased by more than 35 percent and the enforcement budget has jumped by more than 50 percent. All this money seems to have little impact. IRS researchers have confessed that ‘random audit studies show little variation in the overall noncompliance rate in the last forty years’ “

This is, as I said in my original comment, due in large part to the Administration’s and Republican congress’ farming out collections (at greater expense) to private collection firms, who lack the legal authority to enforce collection, which duplicates the work when IRS by law must resume collection when debtors simply refuse the private contractor requests.

These verifiable sources clearly indicate the Republicans have driven up the cost of IRS operations without any improvement in collections efficiency or reductions in the Tax Gap.

Under the Clinton years, we got the same results at a substantially lower cost. Congress in 1998 authorized policies that would address the Y2K problem and public dissatisfaction with collection hardball tactics. Under the Bush administration public approval of IRS collection methods have improved substantially. But, one can readily see why, the government forgiveness and amnesty for middle and upper middle class tax debtors in arrears by more than $10,000 who walk away from the debt having paid only 20 cents on the dollar. Of course public opinion improved. But, cost effective efficiency dropped signi