• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Another Bush FU + A Gonzales FU

Texan

Well-known member
Looks to me like a BIG mistake to offer to let Karl Rove and Harriet Miers testify about the U.S. Attorney firings, but insist that they not be under oath. Wonder what he was thinking? Even Karl Rove should know better than to give that type of ammunition to the dems. That even sounds rotten to me - and I don't think that any of this should be a big deal to begin with.

I fully understand and agree with the idea that it be in private and away from the cameras. That's the only way to stop all of the political grandstanding that the Congressional pricks do. But to insist that they not be sworn in would make it appear to ANYONE that they were intent on giving misleading testimony at best, or lying at worst. Good grief... :???:


==============================================


Bush Warns Dems to Take Offer in Firings

Mar 20 05:04 PM US/Eastern
By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to allow top aides to testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.

"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants," Bush said in a statement from the White House. "I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."

He added: "There's no indication ... that anybody did anything improper."

Democrats' response to Bush's offer was swift and firm. "Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Bush gave his embattled attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, a boost during an early morning call to his longtime friend and ended the day with a public statement repeating it. "He's got support with me," the president said.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O05L6G3&show_article=1
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
According to the O'Reilly show tonite-- "The Judge" says lying to a Congressional hearing is a crime whether you are sworn in or not-- so like you say, why not be sworn in...Apparently GW wants them to meet on or two at a time- with no record kept :roll: .....

Gonzales goose is cooked... He will be gone in a short time, which he should be if these US attorney firings are tied to politics ... Remember GW praised Rumsfield just days before he asked him to leave too...
 

Tom Russell

Active member
With Congress and the President tied up in technicalities regarding a few prosecutors, one has to wonder who is running the nation. :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
I'm not understanding the havoc created by firing some U.S. Attorneys. 8, I think?

Didn't Clinton fire 93 of them when he went into office?

U.S. Attorneys are at the disposal of the Executive Branch. They are appointed by the Pres. and confirmed by Congress.

They are not lifetime jobs like Judges.

Someone explain.
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
:roll: Boy, how the Dems conveniently forget :roll: :roll: Ol Clinton had all of them fired because he was after only one...to cover up the whitewater case.... I sure didn't hear a lot of screaming about that. Dems hate Bush so much they are looking at the ground through their a$$ and are incapable of coherent thinking :roll:

I'm tired of Bush giving in to the Dems. I wish he would tell them to go to he77.

Here's more information:

Clinton Ends His Presidency as He Began It
Christopher Ruddy
Friday, Jan. 19, 2001
Bill Clinton’s last full day of his presidency ended as he began his first full day, with a subversion of justice.
Today Bill Clinton cut a deal with independent counsel Robert Ray that lets him off the hook for criminal prosecution.

We should not forget that Bill Clinton’s first act as president was to fire all the U.S attorneys across the U.S. – an unprecedented act by an American president.

At the time, critics of the president linked the firing to an effort to stave off the prosecution of House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dan Rostenkowski.

But the real truth became clearer as the scandal known as Whitewater unfolded.

The real reason Clinton fired every U.S. attorney was to save himself, not Rostenkowski.

As we now know, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock was closing in on Clinton for Whitewater-related matters and his and Hillary’s involvement in the defrauding of the Small Business Administration.

Clinton’s replacement for U.S. attorney in Little Rock was Paula Casey, a former law school student of his. She did much to protect her patron.

Clinton carried much criminal baggage before he arrived at the White House, and his administration soon opened his luggage to create an administration in his image: the most corrupt in American history.

Clinton is no dummy; he knew the Justice Department would be his Achilles’ heel.

This is precisely why he sacked all the U.S. attorneys.

This is why he put his "best" friend, convicted felon Webster Hubbell, over at Justice as associate attorney general.

This is why his administration secretly sabotaged the nominations of Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood to make way for Janet Reno, the prosecutor from Miami Vice who had almost a perfect record of never prosecuting white-collar criminals or politicians.

This is why he fired FBI Director William Sessions in an unprecedented and sudden act the day before Vince Foster was found with a bullet hole in his head in Fort Marcy Park.

This is why he had Janet Reno hand-pick Robert Fiske as Whitewater special counsel – a man who as U.S. attorney in New York never found one politician who had committed a crime.

This is why he accepted Robert Fiske’s recommendation of Louis Freeh as the FBI director.

This is why he consented as Freeh quickly removed, retired or transferred out the entire executive committee of assistant FBI directors in a most effective coup d’etat that got no press ink.

No doubt Clinton knew that by controlling the Justice Department and the FBI, he and his administration would have a free hand.

His minions could blackmail U.S. congressmen, the IRS could engage in witch-hunt audits, his head of White House security could gain custody of 1,000 confidential FBI files of Republicans, his Pentagon appointees could illegally release the personnel files of Linda Tripp, and so on.

So powerful was Clinton’s control over the judicial and law enforcement apparatus of the country, the communist Chinese could illegally funnel more than $10 million to help his 1996 re-election campaign.

At the same time, the president could give away the most guarded secrets of our nation to China, an avowed enemy, including supercomputer technology to build nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology – technology that now allows China’s missiles to hit our cities with pinpoint accuracy.

And all of this could be done in silence and with the complicity of the highest officials in the land.

It comes as no surprise that on Clinton’s last day in office he has again cut a "deal" that lets him off the hook.

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish that goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false,'' the president said in a statement issued today.

Basically Clinton admits he committed perjury, got caught at it, but feels he’s been punished enough. He has decided his punishment, not an independent legal authority such as a jury or court.

Robert Ray, like his predecessor Starr, has taken the low road. Perhaps he believes it is in "the best interests of the country," a phrase often used by cowardly men.

I disagree strongly that Clinton should walk and that somehow this is in the interests of the country.

The country may well see the fruits of the Clinton corruption and acquiescence of people like Starr and Ray to Clinton’s corruption, as domestic problems and foreign crises emerge in the months and years ahead.


Read Michael Reagan's comments about Bill Clinton's real legacy. Click Here now.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yep- Clinton got rid of all them- so did Reagan-- but they did it all in one fall sweep and said it was to get new blood because of the fact they serve at the pleasure of the President...Its not unusual to appoint all new US attorneys and/or US Marshals with the change of an administration...

This time it got all FUed like Cal said-- first tried to make out the attorneys were fired for not doing their job or incompetency-- then when called on it had to weasal out and say they were all good attorneys- explaining it that they were just trying to give more attorneys experience and the US attorney label on their resume :roll:

Then it really gets stinky when one is to be replaced by Rove's buddy and one just got thru investigating/prosecuting a prominent Repub Congressmen...

Bush's Boys in D.C. are making most of their own troubles thru stupidity...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Maybe they want to avoid another Libby case where the conviction had nothing to do with the perceived crime..

If they wanted to fire them just do it...and tell the dems tough Manure........

Then there would be no investigation...

Again the cover up stinks worse then the perceived crime...
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
You mean kinda like a WAR to cover up a ego driven mistake????


Ok....sure I see your definition now Steve and yes, it makes sense!
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Kola, I really appreciate you reminding us about Iraq.

I forgot how much of an Oasis it was there and how nice Sadam was. All he did for Iraq was just so wonderful. Those were the days, worry free and living in Iraq. Oh to have Sadam back in power and all would be hunky dory.
 

memanpa

Well-known member
passin thru said:
Kola, you can't have it both ways..........................so which is it?

it is the way SHE wants it no middle ground will be good enough!

it has to be her way or the(fake)tears start to fall :roll: :D
 

Econ101

Well-known member
I think these 8 were appointed by Bush. Many times the incumbent pres. on his second term will not reappoint all the A Gs.

The problem, soley perception or not, was that the reasons had to do with AGs enforcing the law which seemed to unfavored by the adminstration instead of catering to the politicians. AGs have a responsibility to the law and constitution above loyalty to the pres. or the party. It is part of the separation of powers under the constitution and duties of specific offices.

I don't know that the handful of voter fraud cases would have made much difference in the election by votes anyway. Tracing the voter fraud to a specific individual is hard to do because it is hard to get that kind of evidence. This only makes sense when you think about the voting process.

The AGs in question were trying to enforce laws against republicans.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The more I see of scandal, scheme, or stinky mess's appearing the more I notice that Karl Rove's name is always in the middle of them :???:

Personally, I think that may be one of the ones GW needs to quit listening to and get rid of- as if you read a history on the man, he has never worked a day of his life in the real world doing anything-except in politics....

He has always been a Republican "Hatchet Man"--with ties going back to Watergate- and has been used against both Republicans (primaries) and Democrats for smear campaigns and nasty tactics... Just doesn't present the image of the man that should have constant access to the Presidents ear.....

Kind or reminds me of a has been attorney that became a used car salesman....Even looks sleazy....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Reader:
Rove aka Machiavelli. Brilliant but Machiavellian.

I totally agree with you, reader. The question in our society is "do we accept any means?" to an end. Another question is: Can Rove's Machiavellian actions stand up to the scrutiny of the country's values if the Senate dems. have subpeona power and can uncover the whole story.

By the way, and I know you know this, Hitler was a brilliant Machiavellian.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
Oldtimer said:
According to the O'Reilly show tonite-- "The Judge" says lying to a Congressional hearing is a crime whether you are sworn in or not-- so like you say, why not be sworn in...Apparently GW wants them to meet on or two at a time- with no record kept :roll: .....

Gonzales goose is cooked... He will be gone in a short time, which he should be if these US attorney firings are tied to politics ... Remember GW praised Rumsfield just days before he asked him to leave too...

The politicos have consultants to tell them how many days they should stick with an appointee in trouble until getting rid of him/her. I assume that it would be bad in the polls to dump Gonzales immediately. They have to wait a few days and then appear to agree and dump him...

I'm not sure if the polls can get much worse (35% approval) :roll: altho it is on the upswing (from 32% approval) :wink: :lol:

----------------------------------------------------------

Bush Popularity Edges Up From Record Low, to 35%, Poll Shows

By Brian Lysaght

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- George W. Bush's job-approval rating was up slightly this month from an all-time low in February, and remains the weakest of any second-term president since Harry Truman, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll.

The poll gave Bush an approval rating of 35 percent, up from the 32 percent last month that matched a previous low for the president. The latest result is the same as his mid-January rating and within the range of where it was for most of 2006.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=as_.Y3JRuYXQ&refer=home
 

Texan

Well-known member
Hanta Yo said:
I'm tired of Bush giving in to the Dems. I wish he would tell them to go to he77.
Yep, I agree. As far as I'm concerned, Gonzales screwed up last week when he tried to placate the dems by admitting mistakes were made and saying he was sorry. You can't do stuff like that in Washington politics - it's just like blood in the water to a bunch of sharks.

He should have told them to kiss his ass. I lost respect for him when he didn't do that. In the same way that I lost respect for Trent Lott when he tried to kiss every black ass he could find, when he had done nothing wrong.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
This crap is getting old. The Dem's win the house and Senate and all we hear from them is stirring up crap like this and all their non binding resolutions.

Bush has every right to remove the AG's for whatever reason he wants. He broke no rules and he broke no laws. The Dem's need to get over it and quit the whining. And quit wasting our tax dollars doing things that make no difference.

I think they won the Majority and now have no idea what to do. They are running around like a chicken with its head cut off. Lets see some progressive and positive legislation. Since they took control of congress they just keep pushing all the same old crap that they did when they did not have control.

I think now that the got the football they just want to punt on 1st down because they are to scared to run with the ball.

If they do not drop the lets get Bush crap and start doing something progressive they will be in control for a short time. And will have no hope of getting the White House.
 
Top