Jump to content

The Senate vs. The White House: round 4? 39? 13995?


Kaftan Barlast

Recommended Posts

Not-so-latest-news:

 

BUSH KEEPS ROVE FROM TESTIFYING

SPARES SENATE FROM YET ANOTHER TEDIOUS GO-NOWHERE HEARING

 

290906bush2.jpg

Y'all know K-dog aint gonna say anything anyway, so what's the point?

 

Acting from his known sense of mercy and humanism, president Bush used his 'ol

executive privilege to exempt Rove from testifying. Fearing another hearing like that

of Alberto Gonzales might compromise the mental health of the Committee.

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6927206.stm

DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself.

 

Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture.

 

"I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:)

 

But seriously, i would not get too worked up over this one folks. It is simply political theatre. In 7 years the Bush Admin has fired 8 attorneys and pressured 3 others to retire. I am absolutely certain the reasons were political (aren't they always). Over Clintons term Reno fired 93 and no one said a word. The reason is Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General. If he/she want to fire them, that is his/her perrogative. The dems are simply putting on a show in the hopes that the mere hint of impropriety will win a few votes in 2008.

 

Link to source: Bush 8, Clinton 93

"While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before"

Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what gets you the most isnt the fact that they got rid of a whole bunch of federal prosecutors, it's the way they go out of their way to obfuscate everything concerning the affair.

 

Clinton got rid of 93 of them and was like "meh", while George's people are doing the whole "I am not presently disposed to discuss wether in fact I can neither confirm or deny that I might be considering not commenting on this supposed thing that may or may not have occured."

 

 

My fave so far:

072807_pai_5a_gonzales33.jpg

"I am not aware of any other US Attourney that was asked to leave, except in some instances where people were asked to leave quite frankly because there was legitimate cause"

 

feinstein.jpg

"So youre saying these(the eight) were asked to leave without legitimate cause?"

 

072807_pai_5a_gonzales33.jpg

"Uh, no..."

 

 

and so on. :D

Edited by Kaftan Barlast

DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself.

 

Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture.

 

"I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, GD, I'm confused. Does that mean it's OK?

"It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"."

             -Elwood Blues

 

tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, GD, I'm confused. Does that mean it's OK?

There's nothing wrong with firing people using an executive discretion explicitly stated as a power of the office. However, if it's being used for the reasons reported that it might be used for, I think it important for the public to know it.

"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like if he enjoyed the music of Vanilla Ice?

"It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"."

             -Elwood Blues

 

tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I mean if he's using executive powers for Republican -> Democrat feuds.

 

I pity the fool that doesn't enjoy a good Ninja Rap.

Edited by Tale
"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, GD, I'm confused. Does that mean it's OK?

There's nothing wrong with firing people using an executive discretion explicitly stated as a power of the office. However, if it's being used for the reasons reported that it might be used for, I think it important for the public to know it.

 

I agree. The public does deserve to know the reason whatever it is. But they cannot be legally compelled to provide it. And Yes Wals it is perfectly legal and proper. As long as they were not fired for reasons stemming from age, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That would be discrimination and obvioulsy was not the case. Janet Reno fired 93 of them because they were Republican apointees. No other reason. Its a rotten thing to do to someone but it is an executive perrogative. As I said, this whole "scandal" in nothing more than politcs.

 

Once again, look at the hipocrisy. Clinton fires 93, not a word said. Bush fires 8 and it's the end of the world. Clinton pardons over 200 mainly on drug charges, not a word said. Bush commutes 1 and it's the end of the world.

"While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before"

Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, look at the hipocrisy. Clinton fires 93, not a word said. Bush fires 8 and it's the end of the world. Clinton pardons over 200 mainly on drug charges, not a word said. Bush commutes 1 and it's the end of the world.

 

That

This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush commuted more than 1. It was the specific one in that instance that caused an issue.

"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is it that would investigate an illegal act committed by the administration?

"It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"."

             -Elwood Blues

 

tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is it that would investigate an illegal act committed by the administration?

A special prosecutor would be appointed by the Attorney General, approved by the Senate, and he would be independant of(as in not report to) the Excecutive. I think in the end he reports to the House Judiciary Comittee. Not sure on that point. Enoch would be the one to ask. This is right up his alley.

"While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before"

Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

congress if it is the president, the justice department otherwise. congress is definitely overstepping their bounds with this one (their job is legislation, not enforcement). i'm not so sure it is a benefit to their cause, either.

 

"I am not presently disposed to discuss wether in fact I can neither confirm or deny that I might be considering not commenting on this supposed thing that may or may not have occured."

the biggest difference between clinton and bush is that nobody cared then, and the dems now are looking for anything to use against the current administration as fuel for the elections. he had to say something, and no matter what he said, they'd have tried to use it to their advantage.

 

taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That
Edited by Meshugger

"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why cant they just say "We got rid of those guys because they werent loyal to us" ? Why all the pretending and not-answering of questions?

DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself.

 

Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture.

 

"I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why cant they just say "We got rid of those guys because they werent loyal to us" ? Why all the pretending and not-answering of questions?

 

No joke there. This whole thing would be over. Or just said "We did it because we wanted to. It's our perrogative" If the give the appearance of a cover up then people will get curious and start turning over rocks to see whats hiding under them. But then, does the Bush admin making a PR screw up really come as a surprise anyone?

"While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before"

Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One serious question I have is why does the president feel that the Federal Prosecutors need to be loyal to his goverment and politics? And are they supposed to be, or has is it just modern political practice?

DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself.

 

Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture.

 

"I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because they serve at his pleasure. they're political appointees, so he gets to pick and choose to suit his views. i.e., he's the boss of the enforcement branch of the government, so it is his sole discretion on how that is accomplished.

 

taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One serious question I have is why does the president feel that the Federal Prosecutors need to be loyal to his goverment and politics? And are they supposed to be, or has is it just modern political practice?

Actually Kaftan you are not far off. Clinton fired everyone because they were all Republican appointees. That did set a precedent because to my knowledge, prior to that the US Attorneys Office was pretty apolitical. One thing about the US, once precedent is set, it never goes back to the old way again.

Edited by Guard Dog

"While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before"

Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One serious question I have is why does the president feel that the Federal Prosecutors need to be loyal to his goverment and politics? And are they supposed to be, or has is it just modern political practice?

Actually Kaftan you are not far off. Clinton fired everyone because they were all Republican appointees. That did set a precedent because to my knowledge, prior to that the US Attorneys Office was pretty apolitical. One thing about the US, once precedent is set, it never goes back to the old way again.

Can you elaborate on this? My presumptions was that Alberto Gonzales' firing where unprecedented. Also how can Clinton Fire the attorney general lawyers for individual states? I thought the President couldn't do that, the attorney general is the boss not the president.

Always outnumbered, never out gunned!

Unreal Tournament 2004 Handle:Enlight_2.0

Myspace Website!

My rig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One serious question I have is why does the president feel that the Federal Prosecutors need to be loyal to his goverment and politics? And are they supposed to be, or has is it just modern political practice?

Actually Kaftan you are not far off. Clinton fired everyone because they were all Republican appointees. That did set a precedent because to my knowledge, prior to that the US Attorneys Office was pretty apolitical. One thing about the US, once precedent is set, it never goes back to the old way again.

Can you elaborate on this? My presumptions was that Alberto Gonzales' firing where unprecedented. Also how can Clinton Fire the attorney general lawyers for individual states? I thought the President couldn't do that, the attorney general is the boss not the president.

 

No it has happened before on a much larger scale even. And my saying Clinton fired them is not technically accurate because Janet Reno actually did that. She was the AG at the time. Just as Gonzalez did the firing now, not Bush. But I am quite certain both Presidents either had a hand in the decision or at the very least knew about it ahead of time and did not object. And the attorneys fired were in charge of prosecuting Federal crimes, or representing Federal interests for whatever region they were in. As I poster earlier, this is all fine and good. The position of US Attorney is a political appointment and those that fill it serve at the pleasure of the AG in office.

 

The AGs and District Attorneys for the individual States are elected officials and can only be fired by the voters, or in some States can be dismissed by the Governor. But only for misconduct. The US AG can not do a thing to them.

"While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before"

Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My presumptions was that Alberto Gonzales' firing where unprecedented.

sure, that's how they spin it in the media and in congress. they want bush to look bad.

 

Also how can Clinton Fire the attorney general lawyers for individual states? I thought the President couldn't do that, the attorney general is the boss not the president.

he didn't.

 

taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...