Executive Privilege Abused Once More

[RandFan]

Care to point out where all the rest of this "taken to task" evidence is?

I'll tell you what, I'll start making a list as they come up. If none come up then I will appologize to you. I've had you on ignore for months and I don't care enough to go back through and prove anything to you. I think your posts speak for themselves.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As to the attorneys I find it an interesting situation. I don't think it ok to pressure attorneys to act in a political manner the way this administration did. On the other hand Clinton fired en masse Republican attorneys when he took office. So firing without cause is ok so long as there is no apparent political motivation. Clearly Clinton's motivations were not as specific as this administration's but is it really ok to simply fire someone because of party affiliation? Maybe Bush's error was not following Clinton's lead and hiring folks that were loyal from the beginning (assuming that was Clinton's motivation).

This tired talking point has been addressed. It is a distraction to argue the straw man that this case is about firing attorneys, firing attorneys for political reasons, or which other Presidents fired which other attorneys.

This case is about strong evidence the Bush administration is using the Department of Justice as a strong arm of the Republican Party to affect the 2008 election. And there are also some issues about obstructing the corruption investigations of a couple key Republicans. I have not delved into the obstruction cases yet.

So try to keep focused here Rand. Firing the attorneys is only the action, it is not the issue. Though the Republicans are doing everything they can to try to distract people like you with the straw men.

Finally, I don't like the shenanigans of this administration at all and I won't attempt to justify but I will note that outrage typically seems based on party loyalty. I would be a bit more comfortable with the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth if it were consistent regardless of who was in office. When a Democrat takes office you can be sure there will be scandals and they will be sized upon by Republicans for proof of the poor character of that administration and defended by Democrats and we all know that and we don't even know what those scandals are yet. But we know it will happen.

Wrong. For whatever reason you fail to believe the evidence of election fraud going on here. I suggest you suspend for a minute your belief in the tired talking point that this is just partisan politics and actually look at what it is.

Of course, one could argue that Democrats are by and large, inherently immune to corruption.

I don't know what this means. If you are being sarcastic, this tired straw man has also been addressed. No one has said the Democrats are good and Republicans are bad. It is irrelevant. What is relevant is the seriousness of this administrations actions right now. Not who was the worst in history.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll tell you what, I'll start making a list as they come up. If none come up then I will appologize to you. I've had you on ignore for months and I don't care enough to go back through and prove anything to you. I think your posts speak for themselves.

Just like I said, you have no valid evidence that counters what I've posted. You have no desire to actually take a look at the issues. You only want to repeat tired talking points and not seriously examine the actual issues.

 

[RandFan]

This tired talking point has been addressed. It is a distraction to argue the straw man that this case is about firing attorneys, firing attorneys for political reasons, or which other Presidents fired which other attorneys.

This case is about strong evidence the Bush administration is using the Department of Justice as a strong arm of the Republican Party to affect the 2008 election. And there are also some issues about obstructing the corruption investigations of a couple key Republicans. I have not delved into the obstruction cases yet.

So try to keep focused here Rand. Firing the attorneys is only the action, it is not the issue. Though the Republicans are doing everything they can to try to distract people like you with the straw men.

Since I'm not making any arguments in defense of Bush et al then it is rather difficult of you to accuse me of a straw man. I'm simply asking questions and making observations. I'm sincerly interested in those questions. Read my post again.

Wrong. For whatever reason you fail to believe the evidence of election fraud going on here. I suggest you suspend for a minute your belief in the tired talking point that this is just partisan politics and actually look at what it is.

What talking points? I'm making an observation that has nothing to do with the specific issue at hand.

I don't know what this means. If you are being sarcastic, this tired straw man has also been addressed. No one has said the Democrats are good and Republicans are bad. It is irrelevant. What is relevant is the seriousness of this administrations actions right now. Not who was the worst in history.

Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with my point.

 

[RandFan]

Just like I said, you have no valid evidence that counters what I've posted. You have no desire to actually take a look at the issues. You only want to repeat tired talking points and not seriously examine the actual issues.

What talking points?

Hey, match what I've said to some talking points from the GOP or anyone else. Your rhetoric is wearing thin.

 

[Art Vandelay]

It would be nice if you were as concerned about your own typos as you seem to be about those of others.

I do try to avoid typos. And the only time I mention the typos of others is when pointing out their hypocrisy, or other situations where it is germane, or when it looks like it's not a typo. Presumably, your post is based on ignorance as to what the word "typo" means. Writing "it's" instead of "its", for instance, is not a typo.

 

[Snide]

Presumably, your post is based on ignorance as to what the word "typo" means. Writing "it's" instead of "its", for instance, is not a typo.

B.S. I for one know full well the difference, as well as their/there/they're, and other common mistakes. And yet I still do it once in a while....it is a frickin' message board after all. We don't always catch everything and frankly don't always care to try. Very often it is indeed a typo, and not the ignorance of the poster who makes such a mistake.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What talking points?

Hey, match what I've said to some talking points from the GOP or anyone else. Your rhetoric is wearing thin.

Republican talking points:

1) Clinton fired all the attorneys when he started his term.
2) These were political firings but the President is allowed to do that.
3) The attorney's weren't "loyal" enough. Actually the way Gonzales tried to put it was this claim the attorneys hadn't pursued the kinds of cases Bush supposedly wanted pursued and they used Attorney Carol Lam as the example claiming she didn't prosecute enough immigration violations.

The first two are straw men and the third is a ruse. They are straw men because the real issue is about using the DoJ illegally to affect election outcomes. And the issue I didn't pursue here was in obstructing some corruption prosecutions of top Republicans.

Compare those TPs to your comments:

"On the other hand Clinton fired en masse Republican attorneys when he took office. So firing without cause is ok so long as there is no apparent political motivation. Clearly Clinton's motivations were not as specific as this administration's but is it really ok to simply fire someone because of party affiliation? Maybe Bush's error was not following Clinton's lead and hiring folks that were loyal from the beginning"

Feel free to tell me how your comments don't reflect the talking points. I may have misunderstood them.

 

[RandFan]

Feel free to tell me how your comments don't reflect the talking points. I may have misunderstood them.

I didn't know they were talking points. I honestly didn't. I will thank you in advance and appologize when you demonstrate that they are.

In any event, I DIDN'T MAKE AN ARGUMENT that would make my statement or questions a straw man.
I'm NOT exusing bad behavior on the part of Bush.
It is perfectly legitimate to point out hypocricy and I am demonstrating that BOTH Democrats AND Republicans are hypocrites.

{sigh}

I'm asking legitimate questions and making legimate points. You are engaging in ad hominem. Read my posts. I DON'T excuse any behavior on the part Bush.

 

[fishbob]

I notice that people are trying to reason with Art Vandelay as though he were a rational human being.

Why?

Because he's there.
And he is not alone - like mountains in the sheer mass of their denial.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't know they were talking points. I honestly didn't. I will thank you in advance and appologize when you demonstrate that they are.

In any event, I DIDN'T MAKE AN ARGUMENT that would make my statement or questions a straw man.
I'm NOT exusing bad behavior on the part of Bush.
It is perfectly legitimate to point out hypocricy and I am demonstrating that BOTH Democrats AND Republicans are hypocrites.

{sigh}

I'm asking legitimate questions and making legimate points. You are engaging in ad hominem. Read my posts. I DON'T excuse any behavior on the part Bush.

I am not attacking you, thus no ad hom. I am attacking the talking points by pointing them out to people and trying to redirect the focus to the real issues. They are commonly asked questions. But they are not legit questions since they are simply distractions from the real issues which the Bush group has successfully used for that purpose.

You have to realize that I have literally posted pages of specific incidents and other material and it does get tiring to have to repeat it over and over. OTOH, you and Darth Rotor, (not in this discussion), on occasion have shown the capacity to actually look at the evidence. Trouble is you seem to think I don't have that capacity and it colors your willingness to consider I am not just barking up trees.

And really, you need to look in the mirror before you start accusing other people of resorting to ad homs. I am more than willing to discuss issues and evidence with the most radical right wingers in this forum. Trouble is very few of them have anything to say except ad homs. And when you reinforce someone else's ad hom comments, you might as well be using the ad hom yourself. And you do often that a lot along with a number of other people in the forum. I know because I am often on the receiving side of such banal arguments. But I don't care, other than it gets tiring replying to them.

BTW, logic demonstrates what are the sidetracking talking points, no 'proof' is needed. You will hear them repeated incessantly. Tony Snow and and Gonzales have repeated those themes as have a number of Republicans early on who sat on the oversight committees. Now the Republicans on the oversight committees are jumping ship and even joining in accusing Gonzales of perjury.

The issue is abuse of power, not the fact the federal attorneys, "serve at the pleasure of the President". Gonzales and Snow repeated that phrase hundreds of times. Gonzales' other talking points include, "we had legitimate reasons to the fire the attorneys, we just handled it poorly". He says that every time he is asked what the supposed legitimate reasons were. He has not yet been able to say what the reasons were. Which of course is no surprise since the reasons were obstruction of justice and interfering with the elections.

Gonzales' new talking point is when they went to Ashcroft's hospital bed to get him to sign off on the illegal wiretapping, it was "a different program" than the one in question therefore Gonzales didn't lie. Again, that begs the question, which program and why was that one any better of a reason to try to override the acting AG when the AG was critically ill? As with the other talking point, it's a lie with the purpose of changing the subject.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And of course, Dr A. Since I long since tired of his ravings and made him the inaugural member of my ignore list ...

So this is why I can refute him without him screaming halfwitted lies at me.

Cool.

 

[Dr Adequate]

He is not alone *cough* Ion, Oliver, skeptigirl.

Ion and Oliver strike me as dreamish and unfocused, though I may have confused Ion with someone else.

Skeptigirl strikes me as being hypercritical of the Bush administration, and this is me talking.

Art Vandelay strikes me as being the variety of insane that I don't have to feel sorry for.

 

[SezMe]

Technically Bush can fire .... but.....yadda yadda yadda.

I don't think that is true. Consider Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment of Nixon:

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

My bold. It is an impeachable offense to impair lawful inquiries. Firing AGs because they were going after Republican politicians, would therefore be illegal and impeachable. Thus, the inquiry into the rationale for the firings and for the involvement of the White House is a legitimate inquiry into a potentially illegal, impeachable offense.

 

[SezMe]

On the other hand Clinton fired en masse Republican attorneys when he took office.

This is incorrect, RandFan. It is tradition that when a new President is elected, all the AGs resign so the new President can install his own team. It happened with Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, etc.

That action is far different from firing AGs 6 years into a Presidential term, which I believe you have acknowledged.

 

[Random]

I don't think that is true. Consider Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment of Nixon:



My bold. It is an impeachable offense to impair lawful inquiries. Firing AGs because they were going after Republican politicians, would therefore be illegal and impeachable. Thus, the inquiry into the rationale for the firings and for the involvement of the White House is a legitimate inquiry into a potentially illegal, impeachable offense.

If you can get sixty-seven Senators to go along with it, it is an impeachable offense to wear white after Labor Day.

Technically, we are supposed to impeach only for criminal acts, a Constitutional issue I disagree with. I would love to have some sort of vote of “no confidence” mechanism. It would allow us to bypass the entire “is this an impeachable offense” discussion that really doesn’t mean anything and get right to the throw ‘em out vote. Dumbya aside, we should not have to be saddled with a grossly incompetent President because he hasn’t technically broken the law.

 

[Art Vandelay]

B.S. I for one know full well the difference, as well as their/there/they're, and other common mistakes. And yet I still do it once in a while....it is a frickin' message board after all. We don't always catch everything and frankly don't always care to try. Very often it is indeed a typo, and not the ignorance of the poster who makes such a mistake.

As I said, sometimes I mistake a typo for something else. But I do try to avoid mentioning mere typos, and I think that the preponderance of evidence is that "it's" is not a typo. And I get the feeling that your discussing this issue is motivated merely by belligerance, rather than any legitimate concern.

 

[Snide]

As I said, sometimes I mistake a typo for something else. But I do try to avoid mentioning mere typos, and I think that the preponderance of evidence is that "it's" is not a typo. And I get the feeling that your discussing this issue is motivated merely by belligerance, rather than any legitimate concern.

Not really. I'm willing to drop it right now. I just get a bit tired of "nyah-nyah, you made a boo-boo" posts on a message board (unless, as you said, it's in response to someone known for doing it themselves).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Skeptigirl strikes me as being hypercritical of the Bush administration, and this is me talking....

I won't argue that but I do believe it is 'with cause'. So while it may result in what appears to be hypercritical posts against Bush, the underlying reasons are Bush's specific actions, not Bush or the Republicans per se:

Going to war without sufficient cause.
Suspending habeas corpus.
Condoning torture and secret renditions.
Spying on American citizens which I believe has likely included spying on political enemies, not just national enemies.
Abuse of power in an effort to affect election outcomes.
Excessive secrecy.
Moving the country toward a church state.
Replacing thousands of experienced qualified government employees with inexperienced unqualified party loyalists.
Cronyism.

I don't find Bush particularly competent, so that is one quality that I suppose I oppose Bush himself for.

In other words, and I know it's hard to believe, it is my passion for the things I believe are key to our democracy that have been at the basis of my critical posts. There is nothing inherently wrong with much of the standard conservative ideals. Less government, less waste, privatization when they can do a better job, not just when it means big money for some cronies. And I don't necessarily promote all the standard progressive ideals though I do sit on that side of the fence.

If I didn't see all the things going on that I noted above, you would probably be shocked at my moderate political views. I think regulated capitalism is the best of both worlds. I think we need to change the corporate mentality by individual actions rather than government interference though monopolies do pose problems for capitalism which needs to balance efficiency with excessive monopolies. I won't bore you further with more ranting.

The bottom line is I view the direction the Republican leaders have taken their party and the direction Bush has taken the country as close to Orwellian as I've seen in my lifetime and I was around for Nixon. On the other hand, I'm reading a book about the 1918 flu pandemic and it contains a lot of period history. It has been a bit of a surprise to find out just how much of this same kind of stuff has been the norm in this country for at least a century. The McCarthy era was just one of many.

Nonetheless, if I didn't think the Republican leadership and the Bush administration were as dangerous as I think they are, my politics are really more middle of the road than I'm sure any one here will ever believe. Using the office to assure re-elections by means other than campaigning has very ominous potential. And I really wonder if a lot of people aren't grossly underestimating how extensive of a practice Karl Rove has led the Republican Party to undertake in that direction.

 

[Dancing David]

I am not quite as outspoken because I try to hold back my own foolishness, I happen to agree that the current administration and the blind support of it will most likely be a black eye on the republican party and the nation.

The difference that I see is the lack of the large number of people who lived through WWII. the vets and families and people who lived through that had a very different view than many of the ones held today, yes they thought communism was a threat. But they had also fought a huge war to 'defend democracy' and they had a cynicism that made Catch-22 look weak and wimpy (Read the Naked and the Dead by Mailer) , they did not trust government and they did not trust leaders and they thought it was a virtue to discuss things in the open.

So when the Watergate hearings occurred, they watched them and they cared and they talked about it. They would have run out Tony Snow with gales of laughter for all his canned talking points and they would have talked a whole lot more about the concentration of executive power. Some would agree and some would disagree, but there would have been a whole lot more discussion. And not just the media promoted talking points generated by Karl and Dick's Pony Show.


That is the main difference that I see, most people just don't give a poop (new rule eight) and many just say moo-moo and baa-baa. And then they fight over whether they should moo or baa.