President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors....Don't like it? Impeach him! Or just bitch about it and try to obstruct whatever you can as you drive your ratings toward the single digits after sweeping into office in January promising to deliver all sorts of accomplishments. Your choice, Congress.
In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers' demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.
ADDED: Marty Lederman looks at how Congress might go about seeking the prosecution of the witnesses who won't testify or using a civil suit to get the matter into a court. The witnesses would, of course, assert the defense of executive privilege, and if the court got to the merits of the case -- an iffy proposition -- it's rather obvious that the privilege would be upheld. Is it in Congress's interest to force that decision and obtain that precedent? I think not. So let the bitching rage on. Or were you hoping for impeachment?
Posts
142 comments:
It's a race to the finish to see who can get below zero before the other - Bush or the Congress. Impeaching him, though, might just put Congress over the line.
I think trying to impeach him now, with only a year left in his Presidency, would be a grave mistake for the Democrats (as well as being a grave mistake for the country). It would be a mistake for the Democrats because, I believe, people are really, really tired of the political wars. Don't believe that? Look at Congress' approval ratings. Remember, the type of people who post on blogs are atypical (myself included).
If the Democrats were smart, they'd drop this whole thing.
How many of the "100 hour" promises actually became law? I think it was only the minimum wage increase.
I hope that Congress goes forward on impeachment. America will get to see just how out of touch the Democrats are.
This is a win win for Bush--it administers another suppository to congress and the republican base loves it. I would love to see the congress impeach, but I suspect even Pelosi and Reid can count to 67.
I am just tired of all these people who swear that Bush has violated all these laws and thumbed his nose at the Constitution, yet refuse to push for impeachment.
If they are so certain of their convictions, the political ramifications should be minimal, as the American people, already tired of Bush, learn of all the high crimes and misdomeanors. Otherwise they are willing to put aside political ambition (power) for the preservation of the Rule of Law, etc, etc.
Lacking the courage or conviction to do that, they need to, as they say, STFU.
He should be impeached and convicted for several reasons:
First, as a lesson to future presidents who are tempted to abuse their trust.
Second, to deprive him of whatever bennies he might have gotten had he finished his term.
Third, to bring about a swifter end to the illegal war.
Fourth, to send a message to terrorists to hold off--we really are beginning to feel your pain.
Jimbino said: "He should be impeached and convicted ... to send a message to terrorists to hold off--we really are beginning to feel your pain.
Wow.
Isn't congress supposed to be solving social security/Medicare/Immigration?
jimbino said...
Third, to bring about a swifter end to the illegal war.
Do you really think President Dick Cheney would end the war?
What are the Dems good for other than making up shandas?
Impeaching President Bush and removing him from office would be a huge mistake for the Democrats. From what I've seen, most liberals/Democrats hate Cheney more than they hate Bush. Plus, Cheney would get to pick a new Vice President. The Democrats then have a choice: they can stall the confirmation until after the election, or give a Republican the incumbent advantage in the 2008 election. Seems like lose/lose to me.
Jusstin--I am sure plan B calls for impeachment of both Bush and Cheney--a twofer. If that course of action were successful, we would have President Pelosi. Not that there's anything wrong with that.....
Mike said:
"If the Democrats were smart..."
I think we are beyond "If..." and gaining on "Given that the Democrats are incredibly stupid and self-destructive...", for which I am seriously thankful.
Obstruction is, in the end, all a (simple) legislative majority can do when the executive is held by someone of the opposing party.
I think a lot of independents and moderates understood this when they voted for Democrats, figuring that after the last six years, a little obstruction might be a good thing.
Ann:
Are you really encouraging the Congress to impeach Bush? I know crap about this whole impeachment stuff....but (I love the word 'but'...so does my eighteen month old son), when I think about impeachment, I think about having 'proof' , i.e. the stain on the dress (DNA), busted burglars....
Right now, while there is plenty of smoke, there is no smoking gun....no tangible, corporeal, physical proof...not at present, at least.
My gut tells me, executive privilege and other strong forces (e.g. pols protecting one another, a tilted system of justice) are operating to prevent the American people from knowing the depth and breadth of corruption, deceit, and illegal activity that is occuring at the highest levels of our government.....and the illegalities and immorality are not related to someone's ejaculation or the breaking into a Hotel room. They seem much more ephemeral.
Currently, congress investigating the executive branch ain't working very well. However, I believe some terrible things have been foisted on the American people, by their leaders.
I would like to see Congress scale back their investigations, become more targeted in their efforts to regulate the executive branch, and work on other legislative issues.
If there is ever going to be any profound exposures of illegality and corruption, I suspect it will come through the investigatory efforts of the press (across all media). Some people with proof of wrong-doing will likely have to crack, and spill what they've got (a contemporary deep throat kind of character) to the press. If I were asked to lay odds, I believe the chances of the stink really coming out will be after Bush has left the White House, although personally, I would like to see it happen sooner, rather than later. My gut tells me that the indiscretions have been extreme, therefore the efforts to keep them private will be equally extreme.
I think Robert makes a good point. Bush has certainly attempted to tackle some really big issues including social security, immigration, democratizing the mid east etc--and in so doing relearned the lesson that Hillary learned in 1993: Our governmental system responds only incrementally to large problems. Were the democrats to win the presidency they would do well to consider that.
Am I the only one who heard that Cindy Sheehan said yesterday that whe intends to run against Pelosi if she doesn't start impeachment hearings soon?
I do believe that is the Dem base talking- all feelings and no thought.
I am forced to think that this impeachment tit-for-tat goes all the way back to Watergate, and now teh Repubs are one up (after all Nixon deserved to be impeached; Clinton didn't) and now they need to impeach Bush to even the score.
The Dems may even start the process, knowing the eventual outcome would be dismissal anyway, just to prove to the base that they tried. Its not about the logical right, wrong or indifferent; its about the FEELINGS.
The Dems trouble is more and more people are voting rationally, and not on their FEELINGS.
Sloanasaurus said...
Isn't congress supposed to be solving social security/Medicare/Immigration?"
Isn't that the same congress that did nothing on the issues for the prior six years? that congress?
heck yes impeach him. cheney first though. in fact that is the low hanging fruit.
An Edjamikated Redneck,
Althouse had a great post about the inanity of Democrats who claim that their problem is that they've only been serving up rational arguments to voters instead of playing on emotions. She rightly said that was bull, and I think the same can safely apply to your claim claim that rational = Republican.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/06/newsweek-serves-up-hot-news-that-voters.html
Roger said,
Bush has certainly attempted to tackle some really big issues including social security, immigration, democratizing the mid east etc--and in so doing relearned the lesson that Hillary learned in 1993: Our governmental system responds only incrementally to large problems.
Definitely. And I think Senator Clinton learned that lesson very well, which is part of the reason why she has my support at the moment.
Robert- I would never agree that rational=Rebuplican, but of the two choices, which is regularly MORE rational?
"Soldiers from 5th IA said al Qaeda had cut the heads off the children. Had al Qaeda murdered the children in front of their parents? Maybe it had been the other way around: maybe they had murdered the parents in front of the children. Maybe they had forced the father to dig the graves of his children."
Lacking the courage or conviction to do that, they need to, as they say, STFU.
Nah, this is one case where they appear to be playing it smart. They know they'd get killed in the polls if they actually tried to bring about impeachment proceedings, and no doubt recognize that all the "crimes" they keep blathering about are vaporous. But this way, they can keep yelling "Crimes!" and "Running roughshod over the Constitution!" without any of the consequences of actually having to put up. Just keep letting the media repeat whatever they say, and hope it becomes part of the national myth.
Hey, worked for Katrina. . . .
wow, just what we need, a bunch of apologists for the Bush admin giving "advice" to democrats. so, really guys, you think that would be a bad thing, to try and impeach Bush? well, if you say so, we better not! as if you're speaking to people who can actually do anything about it. Clinton's "impeachment" was not popular at the time but those darn republicans went ahead and did it anyway. were you all giving out advice back then?
save the fake concern, smarter-than-thou patriots! put 'em both in cuffs and march 'em out, Cheney and Bush. what a mess you fools got us all into...
Are you saying that Congress doesn't have a right to complain until its exercised its impeachment power? It seems as if you'll say anything these days, so long as it puts Democrats in a negative light and George W. Bush in a positive one. If there were ever any doubts about your true political leanings, they have now been resolved.
Isn't that the same congress that did nothing on the issues for the prior six years? that congress?
I thought it was the new Congress that took over in 2006 which was the result of the American people speaking out against the policies of Bush and Co.
At least that's what Pelosi said.
The point is, I heard a whole lot about how this will be a Congress of accountability and transparency and thus far, I haven't seen a whole lot of anything.
I would never agree that rational=Rebuplican, but of the two choices, which is regularly MORE rational?
That seems like a difficult thing to accurately quantify.
More often than not, saying that your political opponents are acting "irrationally" seems like another way of saying that you don't agree with your political opponents.
And there's much one can say to that other than: No shit?
Hoosier...you haven't seen anything because this congress is overwhelmed trying to get the bottom of the swamp Bush et al have created.
Hard to fix things until you know the extent of the problem...and Bush doesn't seem to want to show how bad things are.
Danny--and your point is what? all I see is a lot a babbling about cuffs and frog marching. How do you propose to do that? Ah yes--its right there in a penumbra of article one: "congress shall have the power to put in cuffs and frog march...." oh, wait.
i love all of the inane comments regarding the "democratic" congress and their horrible polling.
first of all, they effectively only hold a one vote majority so when polls say americans are fed up with "congress" it includes every one of the republicans, too. (and that's based on lieberman...whatever the hell he is)
second, the democrats have had this slim majority for about 6 months and anybody with an understanding of government knows it's almost impossible to get damn near anything done with the opposite side of the aisle only needing to sway a couple of votes.
third, bush has been running the show for 7 years, with a good-sized republican majority in both houses and he's pushed through few if any of his "pet" projects like social security overhaul and the recent immigration bill. (anybody remember his cocky comments regarding the "political capital" he had after the last election...and how he was going to do exactly what he wanted? yeah, that really worked out well.)
americans are disgusted with our entire government, the democrats and the republicans and it was exemplified by the turnover in the last elections...and will be even more obvious in 2008.
bush & cheney have poisoned the waters for republicans for years to come (see any of the current republican candidates sidling up to either of them?)...and if anybody thinks the prosecutions of people currently serving in this administration is over are dreaming.
HD: the committees on oversight may be overwhelmed (interesting argument, BTW. Certainly get points for originality for that one). How about the many other committees of congress? Certainly a sophisticated bunch like congress can multi-task.
Lucky: Serious question--who in this administration do you see being indicted and for what?
roger,
i'm not part of the legal community so i don't know who will or will not be prosecuted. i do know that congress is asking people to testify, which generally means they feel something is amiss...somewhere.
i realize the republicans don't want to hear about it (unlike when clinton was in office and we watched a parade of investigations for 8 years), but that doesn't mean there won't be some problems down the line for some.
also...what is YOUR take on why rove, meiers, etc., not only won't talk under oath, but won't even allow a transcript of any conversation?
do YOU believe the american people are not entitled to see exactly what was or was not said during questioning? clinton allowed a number of his aides/staff to testify (under oath)...including former counsel beth nolan, former aide bruce lindsey and former white house chief of staff john podesta and former deputy AG eric holder.
why, in this case, does bush and cheney fee their people are not governed by the same rules of law?
how would anyone ever know what was actually said if the people are not under oath or there is at least an accurate transcript of what was said? (have you ever heard of anything like this before?)
*and of course...why is anyone afraid of testifying under oath...if they're telling the truth? (and please...no more of the presidential privilege silliness, we've had way too many cases before this where it was waived or overruled by the courts - remember nixon?)
Hoosier...you haven't seen anything because this congress is overwhelmed trying to get the bottom of the swamp Bush et al have created.
Hard to fix things until you know the extent of the problem...and Bush doesn't seem to want to show how bad things are.
Are you saying that it was Bush who created the SSN/Medicare pending insolvency, or illegal immigration? Spending out of control? Well Congress controls he purse strings. This ‘swamp’ has been around for a quite a bit of time. Iraq; everyone knows how bad that is. More GOP are coming to the Dem side so Nancy needs to get moving on a withdrawal bill. What is ‘overwhelming’ Congress so much they can’t even get a common sense immigration bill passed much less insist on enforcing the current immigration law.
Lucky: the reason I asked the question in the first place was there are, to my knowledge, no on-going investigations by DOJ or independent counsel. Given the relatively short time remaining in this administration, it becomes increasingly difficult to get such investigations going.
In my opinion, Congressional investigations are more for show than substance, irrespective of who is conducting them, democrats or republicans. Presumably if they uncover evidence of wrongdoing, they will still have to refer such evidence to the Justice Department for prosecution.
You asked for my take on why Rove, Meirs etc, don't testify in congress under oath. I really do think it is to preserve the notion of executive privilege for not only this administration but future administrations. (there is also a self-serving component--I don't deny that).
Finally, if I recall correctly, the supreme court held that executive privilege did not hold in criminal cases when they ruled on the Nixon tapes. But I would need others more competent in the law to address that.
hoosier,
can we assume this "common sense" immigration bill you propose includes a gigantic wall and the deporation of the 12-20 million illegals here already?
and does it take into account that if we deport 100,000 illegals a month, it will take 12-16 years (and that's assuming none are still coming INTO the country)...
...or that the wall will cost billions and takes years to build...
and that the american taxpayer will foot the bill for the "legals" left behind who are primarily mothers and children who are afforded the same rights as all americans?
the immigration bill folded because NOBODY, left or right can figure out what to do without destroying our economy or creating an even bigger problem that exists today.
(as for the medicare bill, what happened to the GOP "majority's" claim to small government and fiscal conservatism?)
*oh, and a report i read over the weekend says we're now spending close to 12 billion dollar a month in iraq.
do you consider that money well spent?
Am I the only one who heard that Cindy Sheehan said yesterday that whe intends to run against Pelosi if she doesn't start impeachment hearings soon?
I heard it on the radio yesterday as I was driving home in a downpour. It was all I could do to keep control of my car from laughing so hard! Is there anyway that both can lose?
How many of the "100 hour" promises actually became law? I think it was only the minimum wage increase.
That was my recollection as well even though the Democrats fudged the “100 hours” to give themselves more time and broke their promise about a Minority Bill of Rights in order to ram things through, I was rather surprised at how little they actually accomplished.
thorley,
yeah, with a whole 100 hours...it seems like they could have gotten us out of iraq, passed new immigration legislation, social security reform, a new medicare bill, altered tarifs to help american business, eliminated racism, bigotry and put a big heaping plateful of wholesome food on everybody's plate.
*then again, the republicans had congress in a choke hold for 12 years...and look what they've done.
(as in massive deficits?)
Wade Garrett: "Are you saying that Congress doesn't have a right to complain until its exercised its impeachment power? It seems as if you'll say anything these days, so long as it puts Democrats in a negative light and George W. Bush in a positive one. If there were ever any doubts about your true political leanings, they have now been resolved."
I said they could "Just bitch about it" as one of the options, so obviously I think they have a right to complain. "Bitch" is just a fancy intellectual word for "complain."
And it has nothing to do with Democrats and Republicans. I assume Democrats will be back in the presidency sooner or later and the Democratic President will also want to keep internal deliberations confidential. I signed the lawprof letter against the Clinton impeachment, you know.
Really, do try to think beyond the immediate controversy. Your eagerness to cripple the current President is making you blind.
I think for the most part, the congressional dems are taking up a pretty good strategy: keep the focus on republican misdeeds, avoid staking out a position until they either get a democratic president elected or increase their majorities in congress, and see who the democratic presidential nominee is going to be. I don't expect politicians to go up on the skyline if they absolultely don't have to. They can delay and conduct oversight investigations for the rest of this congress. It't probably a good strategy.
Your eagerness to cripple the current President is making you blind.
Is there any evidence that the Presidency isn't already crippled? What legislation that he's backed has been passed in the recent past? Okay, very little legislation at all has been passed, so it's a trick question. Still, President Bush's imperial actions to the contrary, he is a weak chief. How many people are following him?
I am thinking beyond the immediate controversy. In fact, I'm trying to think of an occasion when you haven't jumped to the President's defense.
What you're saying is that Congress has two options: impeach him, or just to complain about it. If Congress does decide to impeach him, are you going to agree with their decision? You seem pretty tired of hearing them bitch about it, so, since they only have those two options, surely you favor impeachment.
hoosier,
can we assume this "common sense" immigration bill you propose includes a gigantic wall and the deporation of the 12-20 million illegals here already?
Actually I thought simply fining businesses and deporting those found here illegally would work. I mean, that's what the law is now.
...or that the wall will cost billions and takes years to build...
So did the space program, what’s your point? Do you support an open border in lieu of that?
and that the american taxpayer will foot the bill for the "legals" left behind who are primarily mothers and children who are afforded the same rights as all americans?
To coin a phrase the left likes to use, ‘Are you not paying attention?’ The American taxpayer is doing that already from education to health care for the illegals now. Who do you think is paying for those ER visits?
the immigration bill folded because NOBODY, left or right can figure out what to do without destroying our economy or creating an even bigger problem that exists today.
Can anyone here or in Congress (I’ve asked my rep and never got a reply) tell me why we can’t simply demand that the current crop here register as guest workers and deport the ones who don’t? Is there a reason why closing the border to illegal immigration is denounced as racism? Are Hispanics the only ones who get a free pass but Poles, Russians or Africans have to go through BCICS to get in?
(as for the medicare bill, what happened to the GOP "majority's" claim to small government and fiscal conservatism?)
Good question. Asked that myself when it was proposed.
do you consider that money [Iraq] well spent?
Uh, no and never did. I may be a conservative but that doesn’t mean I was in lockstep to go to war with Iraq. Personally I never thought the Iraqis had the political/social maturity to embrace democracy or anything short of a theocratic or secular dictatorship and current events don’t appear to be proving me wrong.
I tend to favor the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors as anything a majority of the HR says it is, but what specifics would be such hypothetical articles? I have heard cronyism, incompetence, lying to get us into a war--but what charges would be likely to stick?
first of all, they effectively only hold a one vote majority so when polls say americans are fed up with "congress" it includes every one of the republicans, too.
I like how you explained the unpopularity of the Republican Congress by saying people disliked Republicans, and are now explaining the unpopularity of the Democratic Congress by saying... that people dislike Republicans. Amusing.
Still, there's no getting around the fact that Congress was more popular when the Republicans were in charge of it.
second, the democrats have had this slim majority for about 6 months
Their approval ratings have been steadily dropping over those six months -- and are now not only far below the Republicans' worst ratings, but below the previously worst recorded approval ratings in American history. Unless they think of something to turn things around, six months from now their approval ratings will be even lower and we'll be forced to endure your bleats about how it has "only been one year".
Oh well, at least you can sleep soundly believing that Bill Clinton would win in a landslide if he was allowed to run in 2008. I'm sure that comforting thought is a nice, warm security blanket against all the troubles the Democrats are having back in the real world.
The GOP-led Congress held higher approval ratings because they have sheep following and agreeing with them, no matter how reality may differ. In order to achieve and maintain these low ratings, both sides need to disapprove; Apologists don't know what that means.
This is how Bush maintains an approval rating in the 20's, despite all odds. Which makes them not only Apologists, but Enablers.
The Democrats are not going to get high approval unless they stop the war. That's why I voted them back into power. Of course I disapprove with what Congress has done so far, as should all who oppose the war.
Lucky,
Do you not remember the Democrats promising all sorts of reforms and legislation in their first 100 hours? Their 100 hours are now over. What did they accomplish? If you refuse to hold them to their own standard and excuse their (lack of) actions by saying "but the Republicans are worse...", then aren't you just a shill for the Democratic party?
The Democrats are engaged in a program of tieing the hands of the current administration to keep Bush from doing anything substantial for the remainder of his term.
Further, formal procedings of any sort involving special prosecutors and testimony related to years old conversations are simply fishing expeditions designed for 'gotcha' headlines. The Libby trial put paid to the notion of fairness and and any hope that the President would not invoke Presidential Privilege to the Reid/Pelosi/Sheehan current circus.
Meanwhile, we are about to have three carrieir battle groups in the immediate vicinity of Iran, Syria is on the ropes account the Harriri assassination, Iran is using proxies around the world to save itself from an impending U.S. attack, Israel is preparing to defend itself from Hezbolla, Hamas, and Iran, al qaeda/Iran are sending the Brits a message that if Blair doesn't back off more attacks can be expected in Londonistan, anti-Tehran groups are causing problems for Ahmadinejad in Iran's oil fields, crude is over $70 a gallon, and the democrats are displaying zero interest in foreign affairs unless you count Pelosi going to Syria wearing a very fashionable head covering.
Get a grip!
danny: The GOP-led Congress held higher approval ratings because they have sheep following and agreeing with them, no matter how reality may differ.
You really weren't paying attention if you think Republicans were "sheep" agreeing with GOP Congress.
The Democrats are not going to get high approval unless they stop the war. That's why I voted them back into power.
Thats a stupid reason to vote for them. The Democrats were never going to stop the war, same way the were never going to stop the "culture of corruption". Funny about that last, its gotten worse since they took over Congress, yet you never hear those words anymore... Face it, they snookered you.
Of course I disapprove with what Congress has done so far, as should all who oppose the war.
This is why wars are not started/ended based on popular opinion. Too many people don't have the balls to do whats right. Would you have left Saddam in power? Making a mockery of UN regulations and sanctions? And what about Iran's nuclear program? No big deal to you so long as you get your decaf latte, MTV and cheap oil economy, right?
Mindsteps,
I suspect your gut is wrong. One thing this administration has been unable to do is keep anything secret. Were there the smoking gun you so desire--or even a weak facsimile, like the non-leak-leak that didn't start in the administration--the bloodhounds would be on it.
Likewise, I have to believe that the horrible corruption the Clintons were accused of was not particularly actionable/provable.
Maybe our imaginations are, in fact, worse than the reality.
Your eagerness to cripple the current President is making you blind.
Ann, allow me to let you in on a little secret: The current president is already crippled with 18 months to go.
Not that he actually accomplished much of anything in his 6.5 years that wasn't an unalloyed disaster, anyway, but now his loyal flock in Congress have started to abandon him and there's absolutely nothing he's going to do other than prolonging his splendid little war.
"Bitch" is just a fancy intellectual word for "complain."
Right, but it's one we generally use when we're unsympathetic to the complaint. For example, you probably don't think of yourself as constantly "bitching" about the New York Times photo selection or the popularity of Barack Obama, even though a critic might characterize it that way.
True to form, you propose this either/or for the Democratic congress without suggesting which you'd prefer.
Does the fact that you were against the Clinton impeachment mean that you are also against Bush's impeachment? Or does it just show that before 9/11 you had a brain that worked?
Not sure what you mean about decaf latte or MTV, I drink caffeinated coffee and don't have cable, but hey, we all can generalize, right? And I AM for cheap oil.
Yes, I would have left Hussein in power, of course, the war was never a good idea, any monkey could see that. You had, in Mr. Hussein, the most contained dictator that there ever was, and an Iraq that was, yes, much better off before than it is now.
(cue Bush's "raperoom and torture" comments!)
And think of all the soldiers that would still be alive today instead of killed for no reason in this war.
As for your other assertions:
Do you think I should have voted for GOP candidates if I was against the war and wanted to end it? That seems rather dumb.
Were the GOP-led Congress' approval ratings higher because Democrats thought they were doing a good job? Or because the defenders of all-things Republican will remain loyal until they are dragged away kicking and screaming "Commiebastards!"?
How does Mr. Bush maintain an approval rating so high?
MadisonMan said..."Still, President Bush's imperial actions to the contrary, he is a weak chief. How many people are following him?"
right around 26%.
rev says: "I like how you explained the unpopularity of the Republican Congress by saying people disliked Republicans, and are now explaining the unpopularity of the Democratic Congress by saying... that people dislike Republicans. Amusing."
where did i say that?
Congress' ,ow ratings are in relation to not opposing Bush to the fullest measure.
A super majority of American citizens wants us out of Iraq.
Chew on that for a second...
A majority would not oppose impeachment at this time or endorse it outright.
Bush is worse now than Nixon was then to Americans.
Thanks for 2006. America went to vote against George Bush and the rubber stamp Congress.
Misdemeanors are in place as to prevent plea bargains from moving one from scrutiny.
Executive Privilege can only apply to persons in sitting positions of authority with items tasked that role.
She's not in the role she was then, she has to appear or face contempt.
Ann continues to try and pad her resume for a White House appointment in the Bush administration...
Ann continues to try and pad her resume for a White House appointment in the Bush administration...
Ha, yeah that's right.
Impeachment over the US attorney firings would be interesting.
I imagine that the U.S. political system would slide into something akin to the Roman empire after commodos, where we would have presidents of opposing parties being impeached moments after they are elected... that is until a president said he had enough and sent the army down to the Capitol.
Bush should come on TV and admit that he fired the 8 US attorneys for political reasons; i.e. that he fired them because they were not carrying out the policies of the government... things like not prosecuting illegal aliens. Bush should also point out that these 8 U.S. attorneys are adults. They were making $150,000+ per year and had all been serving past their initial 4 year term and that they are sure to land on their feet.
I am sure the American people willl continue to feel sorry for these 8 U.S. attorneys. Boo Hoo.
Or just bitch about it and try to obstruct whatever you can as you drive your ratings toward the single digits
That's right, Ann, let it out. It doesn't matter that now the "obstruction" is now being done by the Republican minority and your beloved Leader. It doesn't matter that the right direction/wrong track polls reflect the direction that Bush and his minions set us on, or that it's Democrats who are angrier with Congress than anyone (because of the continuation of Bush's war).
But again, do you support impeachment or do you support Congress knowing its rightful constitutional place at the feet of our glorious Leader?
Bush is worse now than Nixon was then to Americans.
A new troll has emerged. Everyone, meet Mr. Murder... maybe he is not so new..?
Sloan -
The issue isn't just that 8 people lost their jobs, it's that those people lost their jobs for failing to pervert the criminal justice system.
Much bigger potatoes than Monica Lewinsky. Much. And people know it. That's why the impeachment of Bush is much more popular now than Clinton's ever was (well that and the fact that Clinton wasn't the worst president in history).
It doesn't matter that the right direction/wrong track polls reflect the direction that Bush and his minions set us on, or that it's Democrats who are angrier with Congress than anyone (because of the continuation of Bush's war).
Life is so dim in your world.
Congress' low ratings are in relation to not opposing Bush to the fullest measure.
Not true. You didn't win Congress back by a supermajority - your gains were normal for the 6th year in. You assume that 84% of the public is unhappy with Congress b/c they are not opposing Bush to the fuillest measure?
A super majority of American citizens wants us out of Iraq. Chew on that for a second...
Again, simply not true. Nor does it matter - national security is not a popularity contest.
BTW, since you're so in love with popular opinion, you'll like this: 61% of Democrats either believe Bush let 9-11 happen on purpose [35%] or aren't sure [26%].
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance
Are you one of them? If so, then what good is your opinion to begin with?
The issue isn't just that 8 people lost their jobs, it's that those people lost their jobs for failing to pervert the criminal justice system.
So what.... are you going to torture the 8 attorneys until they come out and "admit" they were on track to bust wide open their case to get Bush.
None of these attorneys have testified to anything remotely close to what you imply. Did they tell you secretly that they had the goods on Bush? maybe its time you fess up. Are they waiting to write a book? Lets hear it.
This is another made up lefty conspiracy. Kind of like Bush taking down the World Trade Center... but maybe a little more whacky.
Hoosier Daddy said...
"Are you saying that it was Bush who created the SSN/Medicare pending insolvency, or illegal immigration? Spending out of control?"
Damn right I am. Who else is to blame? Or are you going to lay this on Clinton?
This is all Bush. 100% Bush. He is a failure and a fool. Not sure in which order.
Somebody answer me, goddammit! Why does Mr. Bush still have 20-something percent approval ratings? What is he doing that so impresses this many percent? What's the good part and how did the rest of us miss it?
Ah Christ, forget it, you're all a bunch of wackjobs...
Sloanasaurus said..."Impeachment over the US attorney firings would be interesting."
you're right (for once), it would be very interesting.
especially because we would be able to hear testimony by people in and around the white house, like karl rove and cheney and andy card and john ashcroft, while UNDER OATH.
the firings are always represented by the right wing as being a part of bush's "privilege" an that they can be fired for damn near anything because they "serve at the pleasure" of the president, but they also serve the american public...and this story isn't about bush firing people because he wants better attorneys or attorneys that do a better job. (three of the eight were rated in the top 10 of 93 nationwide...a rather unusual distinction for someone being canned.)
this is about firing attorneys because they're not toeing the republican line or nor pursuing "purely political" cases bush and company think are more important than others.
u.s. attorneys are supposed to be unbiased and focused on protecting american citizens and adhering to the constitutional guidelines in place.
so, yes, sloan...an impeachment proceeding would be quite interesting.
I think it is obvious that if the Democrats in Congress really thought the President was guilty of breaking the law AND thought they could prove it, they would impeach him. (I would add here that they might think they know he is guilty, but if they can't prove it then they really don't know it at all.)
Since they are really not sure about these things, they will spout, and bitch and complain--as is their right. The real question is: Why should we take them seriously?
Re: "the SSN/Medicare pending insolvency, or illegal immigration? Spending out of control ...is all Bush. 100% Bush."
Bush shore is a magical type! Why, he bin running the gummint since afore F.Dee and R. He started the perpetual deficit which bagan after Silent Cal spake. He invented the Welfares, that there Medicaids, and even was the first to have Mexican fruitpickers, an' him not even outta short pants.
Ya gots to admire such a all-pow'ful gummint man, to be pullin' the strings n' such even long afore he stole that there Prexie job. Zowie!
I think the only thing left that might help Bush's ratings is an impeachment fight so it is not surprising that his supporters seem to be egging that on. Hey it worked for Clinton! (Though I am not sure it would work for Bush as he apparently lacks the ability to appear contrite and repentant {oh yeah, and the American people hate the Iraq endeavor a lot more than they hate blow jobs}).
"Though I am not sure it would work for Bush as he apparently lacks the ability to appear contrite and repentant"
Wifey did admit that President was sorry for saying "Bring 'em on!"
...how much more contrite can a man get?
The Democrats are not going to get high approval unless they stop the war. That's why I voted them back into power.
... and that's why they're not going to stop the war. Why give up a voting bloc? They know you're not going to vote Republican so long as the war's going on.
Perpetual deficit? We had a surplus when Bush was appointed...
this is about firing attorneys because they're not toeing the republican line or nor pursuing "purely political" cases bush and company think are more important than others.
Cry me a river. This is such bull. All of the attorneys appointments had run out. They were living on borrowed time. Bush should fire ones that drift from his policies.
Placing policy is the role of a legislature. Attorneys have to remain transparent and avoid partisan stance. Sloan thinks otherwise. Are you certain this guy isn't a parody troll, Ann?
The GOP voter putsch failed the last time out. Americans can hold a grudge longer than anyone. Thanks for 2008.
A super majority of American citizens wants us out of Iraq.
Just about everyone, George Bush included, wants us out of Iraq. Where we differ is in the conditions for leaving.
A majority would not oppose impeachment at this time or endorse it outright.
So why doesn't Congress impeach him? You claim that a supermajority of Americans are vehemently anti-Bush -- indeed, so anti-Bush that Congress's popularity has been driven BELOW that of Bush by their failure to oppose him. Were that the case, Pelosi would have no trouble getting the impeachment votes together. So where's the impeachment?
Bush is worse now than Nixon was then to Americans.
He's still more popular than Nixon was, although not by much. On the other hand, Truman was even less popular than Nixon and nobody seriously considered impeaching him either. Apparently there's more to it than popularity, hm?
President Bush is still very popular with many of us out there as the comments in this blog suggest.
The left and democrats want Bush's head and will try anything to get it.
The democrats are not courageous enough to impeach him because they are gutless and most likely enjoy the role of constant complainer.
The president is a man of strong convictions and principles and does not go back on his word and this infuriates the liberals.
And now that the surge is proving to be a success they want to try and stop the war and will fail.
I disagreed with the president on the shamnesty bill but do believe he will be viewed in history as one of most courageous determined and honest presidents we have had.
The democrats should stop complaining and try and work with the president for the better of the country.
sloan says: "None of these attorneys have testified to anything remotely close to what you imply."
are you saying the visit to ashcroft's hospital bed, right after major surgery, to get an approval of wiretapping...wasn't "remotely close" to being criminal?
i realize you're a tad right of attila the hun...but even YOU should be able to admit this is beyond the pale.
jimbino said...
He should be impeached and convicted for several reasons:
First, as a lesson to future presidents who are tempted to abuse their trust.
Second, to deprive him of whatever bennies he might have gotten had he finished his term.
Third, to bring about a swifter end to the illegal war.
Fourth, to send a message to terrorists to hold off--we really are beginning to feel your pain.
1. The country is fed up with one cabal of politicians attempting to teach the other cabal "a lesson".
2. Deprive him of what? Under law his pension can't be touched and any bennies like libraries and speaking fees are in private hands to dispense or not. If you take away his SS protection, taxpayers might question why we are footing the bill for millions a year to protect Lady Bird Johnson from all the "threats" she faces...let alone the merits of providing Roslyn Carter and dear Amy with SS.
3. Yeah, go ahead and impeach to end gridlock on ending the Iraq War. Completely paralyze DC for 6-9 months to indulge the hard Left, then pick up Iraq in the middle of a Presidential election campaign. Sounds like a winner. Genius!
4. Impeach so Islamoids know we care and sympathize with their Jihad? Yeah....no one should ever DARE to question the patriotism of the Democrat Party's hard Left..
rebel says: "The president is a man of strong convictions and principles and does not go back on his word and this infuriates the liberals."
right...like the pre-election bullshit about not being in the "nationa-building" business?
"And now that the surge is proving to be a success they want to try and stop the war and will fail."
right...as in more people being killed over the weekend in one day (220 at last count)...than we've seen since the invasion in 2003.
*pure delusion.
especially because we would be able to hear testimony by people in and around the white house, like karl rove and cheney and andy card and john ashcroft, while UNDER OATH.
Actually, no -- Bush could still use executive privilege to excuse them from testifying. Of course, since there's no doubt the President can sack those attorneys for any reason he chooses it would be silly to impeach him for that even if you could get the testimony.
Far more obvious choices would be the warrantless wiretaps and the signing of McCain-Feingold (since he admitted he thought the law was unconstitutional when he signed it -- tacitly admitting he was breaking his oath to uphold the Constitution).
cedar,
impeachment is something america uses to get rid of presidents, vice-presidents and other corrupt officials who care more about power than serving the citizenry.
are you saying it would just be too much of a hassle?
Oh, one thing I missed the first time around:
we would be able to hear testimony by people in and around the white house, like [...]john ashcroft
John Ashcroft, of course, retired two years before the attorneys in question were fired.
rev,
not if he himself is being impeached, dipstick.
were you around when nixon gave the "executive privilege" argument a shot?
didn't work then...won't work now.
(unless of course, kennedy wants to be remembered as the justice who turned our constitution upside down...we already know how the 4 stooges will vote.)
i suggest you read more...and blather on less.
Meld Mr Murder and Luckyoldson's comments together and you almost get complete, coherent sentences!
rev,
so...you don't think there would be any questions posed to john ashcroft regarding his hospital visit?
GFL.
Palladian,
here's a sentence for you: Shove it up your right wing ass.
Danny: Ah Christ, forget it, you're all a bunch of wackjobs...
Yes Danny, its not you, its everyone else.
FWIW, I'm part of the 80% unhappy with Bush - I support his efforts in Iraq but not his efforts re amnesty for illegals.
MrMurder: Perpetual deficit? We had a surplus when Bush was appointed...
Projected surplus, not actual. It was part of the "peace dividend" remember? Funds to Party On Dude! while Al Queda gathered in strength and will. Nice work Clinton.
Lucky/MrMurder: right...as in more people being killed over the weekend in one day (220 at last count)...than we've seen since the invasion in 2003
Lucky thinks body counts are an indicator of success/failure. If CNN had been on the Normandy beaches broadcasting the bloodbath 24/7, people like Lucky would be demanding impeachment. I can almost hear it: Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor! Let Europe rot. We should be focusing on Japan instead!. Fricken selfish partisan morons.
"Palladian,
here's a sentence for you: Shove it up your right wing ass."
Touché! Brava!
So do you have a sentence I can shove up my left-wing ass, because I'd hate for one side to have all the fun?
Fen,
Are you saying that Al Qaeda and Saddam had as strong of an alliance as Germany and Japan?
If so, you should not throw the word "moron" around until you look in the mirror.
Palladian,
here's a sentence for you: Shove it up your right wing ass.
I don't think you're his type.
Lacking any useful goals (apart from a ludicrous minimum wage hoax), and having failed to excite the citizenry on their vast pork agenda, the left is reduced to calling for impeachment as a diversion.
They had seemed so ready to perform, but once again they are embarrassed by electile dysfunction. The impeachment process would be more saltpeter than Cialis, an event that only policy wonks lust over, like beer goggles for the beltway set.
P.S. to LOS: In advance, no, I still won't date you.
Are you saying that Al Qaeda and Saddam had as strong of an alliance as Germany and Japan?
No. Are you saying that Afganistan taught you nothing? Should we allow nation-states to harbor terrorists - provide them with financial, medical, intelligence and logistical support? Should we allow rogue nations with WMD programs in defiance of UN resolutions to provide material support to terrorist organizations? Are you really so short-sighted as to not see the obvious consequnce? I'll break it down into short fragments for you to digest:
Iraq -> WMDs -> terrorist proxies -> sarin in LA -> ricen in DC -> radiation in NY, etc.
Do. you. understand. now?
here are two classic comments from the dumbest poster on this blog...fen-fen:
"I'm part of the 80% unhappy with Bush"
"unhappy" with bush? we have a research poll out today that says 46% want to implement impeachment proceeding (54% for cheney)...and fen-fen says people are "unhappy?"
(try to imagine if they were really pissed off....light his balls on fire maybe?)
AND
"Lucky thinks body counts are an indicator of success/failure."
well, i suppose that depends on whose "body" we're talking about.
maybe fen-fen could like to pose that question to the families of the 3,600 dead american soldiers or the 100,000+ dead iraqis...to see if they feel it's an "indicator."
*i swear...some of these people have to be on psychotropic drugs...otherwise, where would they come up with comments like this??
Lucky: i swear...some of these people have to be on psychotropic drugs...otherwise, where would they come up with comments like this?
Lucky, do you even understand what our goal is in Iraq?
And I was right - you would have taken one look at Normandy and prostrated yourself before Hitler. Go back to your golf game.
pogo says: "the left is reduced to calling for impeachment as a diversion."
when you say "the left," are you referring to this??
American Research Group - 7/5/07
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?
Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 45% 46% 9%
Voters 46% 44% 10%
fen-fen asks: "Lucky, do you even understand what our goal is in Iraq?"
why not explain it to the 65+% of america who evidently doesn't understand.
and while you're at it...explain exactly why we invaded in the first place...and why we had absolutely no plan for the aftermath.
*delusion
not if he himself is being impeached, dipstick.
Impeachment testimony is no different from non-impeachment testimony.
were you around when nixon gave the "executive privilege" argument a shot?
The Nixon case established that a judge could overrule executive privilege under certain conditions. Congress, on the other hand, has no power to overrule executive privilege, and the judge presiding over the impeachment trial will be the Bush-appointed Chief Justice.
Even that assumes that impeachment trials -- which aren't judicial proceedings -- are entitled to the same access to executive-privileged information as criminal and civil trials are. That's doubtful.
so...you don't think there would be any questions posed to john ashcroft regarding his hospital visit?
The hospital visit, little brain, was unrelated to the attorney firings you claimed his testimony was required for. If you wanted to impeach Bush over the wiretap issue -- like I suggested -- THEN calling Ashcroft would make sense.
I hope you're right, LOS, and the Democrats try to take that tar baby.
Whatta buncha maroons.
American Research Group
/yawn
"The conclusion is that there is little evidence for a substantial increase in support for impeachment, over the past 16 months, and the ARG results appear to be at the high end of support in comparison to other polling"
http://www.pollster.com/charles_franklin/
But hey, if you really beleive Bush should be impeached, go for it. Swarm Pelosi 24/7 instead of posting here....btw, why aren't you doing that? Chickenhawk? If you really believe the war is soooo bad, why aren't you staging hunger strikes on the steps of Congress instead of trolling here? Hypocrite?
Lucky: fen-fen asks: "Lucky, do you even understand what our goal is in Iraq?"
And since you failed to answer, I'll ask again: do you understand what our goal is in Iraq? In your own words, as evidence you are not a complete partisan idiot.
American Research Group - 7/5/07
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?
Please begin, don't even wait for an adjudicated high crime or misdomeanor, just start.
I'll give you credit Lucky, all these people just want to bitch (I mean complain, sorry Wade Garrett) but you are ready to go for it and with the multitudes of crimes you've pointed out, its clearly the right thing to do.
when you say "the left," are you referring to this??
American Research Group - 7/5/07
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?
Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 45% 46% 9%
Voters 46% 44% 10%
Hm, Lucky left off the second half of the poll results. I wonder why?
Democrats 69%/22%/9%
Republicans 13%/86%/1%
Independents 50%/30%/20%
Oh, *that's* why he forgot to mention them -- because they prove that the main support for impeachment comes from left-wingers.
I think its instructive to note how animated people like Lucky are re impeachment. Pogo is right - the Dems in Congress need to distract from their sorry performance. They yank Lucky's chain with *talk* of impeachment, and just look at him go. Like sheep.
rev,
you can't be this stupid...can you?
if bush is impeached, do you actually think they'll limit the case to "only" the fired attorneys? "only" the wiretaps?
they'll throw everything into the mix that they feel constitutes a crime.
*read the impeachment documents relating to when they went after nixon and see if they were relegated to the watergate break-in only.
stever,
it's not easy, but dealing with these uninformed and totally biased yahoos makes it a lot more fun.
rev,
i posted the poll of ALL ADULTS.
i also didn't post the breakout of independents either...which were also quite high for impeachment.
being a child isn't easy, is it.
*and if we did a poll here...you'd have 99% saying they were against impeachment, but as you know, most here are dumb as a stump.
fen-fen,
using the term; "like sheep" really takes some balls...considering the insane sycophancy you find here.
if bush called you tonight and asked if he could take a shit in your mouth...you'd ask when and where.
*and please, if you get the call...take, pogo, your bunkmate, along.
Luckyoldson: fen-fen,
using the term; "like sheep" really takes some balls... considering the insane sycophancy you find here.
Uhm Lucky, most the conservatives on this blog [~ 75%] are unhappy with Bush. Don't know what reality your posting from...
Lucky: [Baah! Impeach! Baaaah!]
...but you do look cute in wool.
fen,
so, we're back to your "unhappy" comment regarding bush.
unhappy means your steak is over-cooked or the dishes haven't been done...not having a president who's been so inept even his own party wants his ass gone...and 45% of th american public want to explore impeachment.
*but, speaking of sheep...how's your little friend...pogo?
f bush is impeached, do you actually think they'll limit the case to "only" the fired attorneys? "only" the wiretaps?
You said that John Ashcroft would be called to testify about the fired attorneys. That is what I was replying to. Whatever else he might be impeached for is irrelevant to that. As I've said, there are plenty of things Bush could potentially be impeached for.
Palladian said...
"Palladian,
here's a sentence for you: Shove it up your right wing ass."
Touché! Brava!
So do you have a sentence I can shove up my left-wing ass, because I'd hate for one side to have all the fun?
Spoken like a "centrist".
i posted the poll of ALL ADULTS.
In reply to a claim that the Left was pushing for impeachment. Obviously the more useful bit of information is the one you buried: the political breakdown of those favoring impeachment -- and, as I showed, the majority of those supporting impeachment are Democrats, with virtually all of the remainder "independents".
i also didn't post the breakout of independents either
I know, I pointed that out already in my last post. Please pay attention; take notes if necessary.
In any event, independents are spread throughout the political spectrum, so 50% "independent" support doesn't tell us anything about whether the people in question were of the left, right, or center.
I said:
Are you saying that it was Bush who created the SSN/Medicare pending insolvency, or illegal immigration? Spending out of control?"
Then hdhouse said:
Damn right I am. Who else is to blame? Or are you going to lay this on Clinton?
Er no but to say that SSN, Medicare and illegal immigration were not problems needing addressing prior to Bush is simply a mind boggling statement.
I know you hate Bush with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns, but I think it really affects your ability to look an any issue dispassionately without immediately laying the blame for him at his feet.
Asking "who is to blame for Medicare/SS insolvency" is like asking "who is to blame for slavery in the United States". The only good answer is "everyone who didn't do something to end it".
Social Security has been de facto insolvent since the government started "lending" all the money to itself. I don't remember when that started, but that's where to put the initial blame. The blame since then resides with everyone who didn't do something to end the practice. All I know is the government has taken, and spent, a huge amount of my money -- and given me nothing in return but a hollow promise that I'll one day get a little bit of it back.
Lucky - Unhappy means your steak is over-cooked or the dishes haven't been done...not having a president who's been so inept even his own party wants his ass gone...and 45% of th american public want to explore impeachment.
20% truth. 80% bullshit.
It should be framed as a matter that for the good of the country that Dubya resign for his rank incompetence and misrepresentations - not for the lawyer elite or lawyers in robes to convict of criminality.
Frankly, Republicans and Independents would love to have him step down as a decision of "just consequences" for his disastrous policies and judgment - but the same forces will fight against him being railroaded on trumped up criminal charges.
You know that Lefties desperately wish to make political differences criminal or immoral contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of The People of America. Have since the 1st Talmudic experts spoke several millennia ago or the Chinese imposed mass butchery as a collective criminal penalty for "defying ancient Elites". Have under Marxism, with disastrous results.
The US in no way wishes to emulate intolerant variants of Mosaic or Islamist Law - or their mass democide intellectual heirs. We hope to have moved past criminalization and liquidation by class. We are a forgiving Christian nation but one that still insists on accountability.
The Left loses by insistance that policy differences and minor political scandals the Left opposes are "criminal".
Just say Bush is inept, can't be trusted on matters like Iraq and Immigration and should resign - and you would have 70% of the country backing their elected officials to march in and tell him to step down for the good of the country....
It worked for NIxon...
The reciprocity would be that those marching in agree to keep Evil Uncle Dick and elevate Condi Rice to VP as reward for her stupid advice on matters like freeing Afghan women from burquas and Sharansky democracy. No "America's Greatest Mother and Grandmother" Pelosi and her nauseating insistance she is the #1 Caregiver of "The Children in Uniform" and other Ameicans who are little more than helpless infants needing a wise Nanny.
Frame it as "just ask the asshole to accept the people want him fired and let go".
Lucky: so, we're back to your "unhappy" comment regarding bush.
Yes, since its so difficult for you to comprehend, I'll elaborate: my use of "unhappy" was intended to combine both categories of disapproval - Strongly Disapprove and Somewhat Disapprove. Today, those numbers combine at 59%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval
and 45% of the american public want to explore impeachment.
No, as I posted earlier in the thread, your ARG poll is an outlier: The conclusion is that there is little evidence for a substantial increase in support for impeachment, over the past 16 months, and the ARG results appear to be at the high end of support in comparison to other polling
http://www.pollster.com/charles_franklin/
Rasmussen is more reliable, and shows 39% favor impeachment, not 49%. Breaks down as follows:
56% Democrat
16% Republican
40% Indpendent
even his own party wants his ass gone
Look again Lucky, only 16% of republicans favor impeachment.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/39_favor_impeaching_bush
Of course, like Clinton, you favor doing whats "popular" instead of whats right. So knock yourself out. Go for impeachment.
I support President Bush. There is no way that he can or will be impeached. It would not be wise for the country. More importantly, saner heads in the Democratic party (unlike many of the far-left kooks here) know that it would not be good for Democrats.
Therefore, people who are bitching about it are just bitching. Bitching is exactly the proper word.
Are you saying that it was Bush who created the SSN/Medicare pending insolvency, or illegal immigration? Spending out of control?"
Damn right I am. Who else is to blame? Or are you going to lay this on Clinton?
I'd certainly blame Bush and Congress (Republican controlled until recently, of course) for the out-of-control spending. But I think it's pretty shaky to blame Bush OR Clinton, in a "sole" specific sense, for long-term, knotty problems and conditions which have been decades and decades in the making.
Illegal immigration? Jeez. Remember 1987? The so-called reform act that was supposed to address an issue that had been a problem for a long time? The ink wasn't dry before various constituencies started working to undermine reform, including enforcement and more. (I'm not being coy by using "constituencies"; there were a number with varying motivations, including, but not limited to, business interests and, for example, legal aid lawyers and activist groups.) Lots and lots of blame to go around.
Social Security? (Reform of which program is desperately needed and has been irresponsibly put off, I firmly agree; yet at the same time I am deeply skeptical, to say the least, about privatization proposals. I also distrust the motivations.) This is another issue with multiple factors having caused the problem, and with enough "blame" to spread across decades, parties, and even generations.
It could even be argued that the seed of our present S.S. challenge was present from the beginning: Consider:
On January 31, 1940, the first monthly retirement check was issued to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, in the amount of $22.54. Miss Fuller, a Legal Secretary, retired in November 1939. She started collecting benefits in January 1940 at age 65 and lived to be 100 years old, dying in 1975.
Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits. [None of these figures are "adjusted" for current dollars, inflation or etc.]
Note that, of course, Fuller was paying in at the original rate specified in the Social Security Act of 1935, which was 2% (split between the employee and employer, as now) on wages up to a $3,000 threshold. That rate, in the original act, was to rise incrementally until it reached 6% in 1949, but the incremental rate increases were put off during the '40s. The 6% level wasn't implemented until 1960.
It seems to me that issues with regard to S.S. have been manipulated, put aside and otherwise not dealt with realistically for decades and decades, throughout multiple presidencies and congresses of all flavors, for not just my entire life (born 1961) but, for point of comparison, my mother's entire life. She was born in 1939: the year that, before the program was even totally in operation, its scope and benefits were expanded mightily and the first of the incremental increases were postponed from 1940 to 1943. (As noted earlier, Congress later continued to put off the increases such that the original 6% target for 1949 was not implemented until 1960.)
There is a lot to blame on President Bush and his administration. But assign him the sole blame for long-term problems with social security and illegal immigration, or even the failure to fix 'em? Uh-uh. That ought to be too ahistorical for anyone to buy.
It never occurred to me that so many legal brains would be clueless about how government works!
Congress at 49-49-2 without a way to override a Bush veto has no chance of passing law, much less impeaching a moron President who hides behind executive privilege. For such a tough talker, President Bush really is a... *sigh, nevermind*
Impeach him? Yeah it may happen now that Republicans are pissed off at Bush, but nothing is going to get done until 2008 shakes up our government. Who knows, Republican leaders may soon figure out that the only way to get reelected is to give Bush the finger.
Again, Soto, only 16% of Republicans favor impeachment.
much less impeaching a moron President who hides behind executive privilege
What precedent would that set? Do you believe POTUS should be allowed to keep internal deliberations confidential? If not, what effect do you think it would have on the counsel POTUS gets?
fen says: "Do you believe POTUS should be allowed to keep internal deliberations confidential?"
bush says he never discussed the libby, plame u.s. attorney flaps, that it was ALL handled by his STAFF, GONZO'S STAFF and others.
if that's the case...where's the "privilege??"
fen, you can't have it BOTH ways...unless of course...he's LYING.
fen says...with a straight face: "Rasmussen is more reliable, and shows 39% favor impeachment, not
49%." (and there are other polls to review...even fox)
but...oh, sorry...ONLY 39% of the public want to impeach the president of the united states?? (and of course, that takes into account that if you "average" the democrats and independents - who make up at least 60% of the overall voting public - it's right at 50%+...meaning the only reason it drops to the 39% number is because of the 16% of numbnut republicans who would support bush if he was screwing their dog.)
but just think: ONLY 39% want to impeach...now, that's what i call a successful and trusted president.
DUH.
Seven Machos said..."I support President Bush."
no kidding?
and those who don't are really just "bitching?"
WOW!!
that means we now have about 70% of the american public who don't think about anything relevant to the nation...they're just......bitching.
that-is-deep...
the only reason bush won't be impeached is that there isn't enough time to do the job.
his latest "privilege" bullshit will take until late 2008 to even reach the courts...so he's basically playing out the clock.
*and boy...are there people anxiously awaiting the buzzer to buzz.
High crimes and misdemeanors obviously include being unpopular. Once you understand this, it's a lot easier to understand the mindset of the kooky left.
the only reason bush won't be impeached is that there isn't enough time to do the job.
The reason Bush won't be impeached is that only a minority of Americans want him impeached.
Amusingly, the percentage of Americans who favor impeaching Bush is roughly equal to the percentage of Americans who believe the Iraq war was not a mistake, and significantly less than the percentage of Americans who think we could still win the war.
So there's a clear compromise available here under Lucky's "minority rule" approach: let's agree that the war was a good idea, and go ahead and win it, but impeach Bush for the bad job he's done so far. :)
seven,
you didn't respond to my point regarding bush asking for "executive privilege" to cover conversations he said he didn't have.
is that because you can't...or that you just don't understand??
*as for bush being "unpopular," people who do an exceptionally poor job, never admit to being wrong, lie to the people he governs...can expect to be held in low regard.
Well, Lucky, it's because I hate to engage you. But, just this once...
Executive privilege involves the executive branch and the administration of the presidency itself. It is not attached to the person who is president at any given time. You don't understand this, apparently, and believe that the president has to be involved in something absolutely directly for executive privilege to apply.
This shows a certain level of noncomprehension that I find slightly amazing. It's very much akin to a child who believes that Santa Claus personally delivers every gift.
seven,
i'd say you were condescending, but you're so fucking dumb, that's impossible.
*Executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government.
as to my point:
bush specifically says he had NO conversations with ANYBODY about the u.s. attorney firings and the plame issue.
if that is the case...why doe HE need to protect ANYBODY from revealing ANYTHING they said...if it's something he never had a part in?
or...are you saying he's doing this because somebody...somewhere else in the executive branch said something he wants to protect...but he doesn't know who or what it is...because he doesn't know exactly what it is they said...if they said it??
you're so full of shit it's hard to believe.
Privilege is a prerogative. It's there to use, however you like, and it's not piercable. You are tilting at windmills.
seven says: "Privilege is a prerogative."
only if that "privilege" is used in an honest and reasonable manner...because...we have three branches of government.
the court told nixon to shove it up his ass when he tried the same thing.
you REALLY need to read more.
Ann Said:
President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors...."
OK....I'M A GAMER. SOMEONE SHOW ME WHERE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE APPEARS IN THE CONSTITUTION. ALL YOU SCHOLARS.
So all you non-revisionists and originalitarians or strict constructionists...how do you square the potential for a supreme court case on this issue with the fact that there is no constitutional reference for it. Will Scalia and his puppydog refrain from the debate? Will all neoGOPs run for cover?
"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
Furthermore, if there is no executive privilege, the effect is to make the presidency the lapdog of either Congress or the courts. Where is that in the Constitution?
I will give you this, lefties: At least Bill Clinton never claimed executive privilege.
I will give you this, lefties: At least Bill Clinton never claimed executive privilege.
Is that sarcasm? Because Clinton most certainly used, and abused, executive privilege claims.
Definitely sarcasm.
Fen,
you wag the dog types always blame the Clenis.
Enlighten me to the voting record of the Gingrich House when Clinton asked to go after bin laden?
Oh, another reminder, Democrats kicked the bejesus out of the axis' ass in World War Two.
Germany was signatory to Japan in the war vs. allies, they were concert to warfare. "Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor! Let Europe rot. We should be focusing on Japan instead!"
You sound like the 1930 Republicans, certain you didn't claim Hitler as a buffer zone to the dangers of communism and emerging labor unions, like American conservatives of that time? Prescott Bush and "Trading with the Enemy Act" ring a bell?
A Liberal Democrat was in office during World War II. You know, FDR, the guy whose legacy Bush would so love to shred.
I said the opinion on opposition this war is a supermajority. You know, 70% plus is more than 66%. Maybe you should ask Rove to help on THE MATH. Maybe the two of you could take a lesson on that topic...
We had a simple majority in the last election cycle. Despite Rove breaking the law outright in concert with the RNC. Trying to make attorneys trump up false charges on voters as means of suppression. Falsely vetting scandals through their own apparatchiks and then using that as grounds to suppress votes and shape media narratives for Diebold...
America was watching pretty close this time. People are onto the act.
The main problem with the impeachment issue is the rubber stamp portion still in Congress for the Senate. Bush has made patent examples of impeachable policy, perhaps you should reference Nixon's former Counsel John Dean.
Bush's own lawyer should be charged with contempt. His current Counsel is now trying to claim Privlege for things he previously denied the President had any involvement with.
Included are the attorney firings, the White House changed its story(it's not the act, it's the coverup, unless the act was also illegal). If there was no wrongdoing why the denial?
The Whitehouse said the firings were "performance related" in the media and every prosecutor had glowing reviews of perfomance. Then the Whitehouse changed its story and said it was simply at the President's will that he did it. You're aware of obligations to speak truthfully, especially under oath before Committee?
As for the retard with the Saddam-WMD graphic on the thread, hey you have all the right in the world to be stupid, that's your opnion, but spouting crap as true that's already been demonstrably proven otherwise is an insult to the entire conversation regarding discussions of legality.
Perhaps you never really read the item and still have a conclusion that you can say determinatively gains credence in context of the topic. Although what Bush did on 9-11 has to do with legal procedure of our attorneys, or public opinion in light of various scandals, or even policy of a more popular predecessor who had more success than failure to show for America's bank statement and world standing, I guess you can try to miscast this conversation and breathlessy say 9-11 over and over, like Bush, Chertoff, Gonzales and Cheney are want to do oft times...
The point is, what's it got to do with the illegal behaviour? He's done enough already on record to begin inquiries, and he does not care to appear before Committee?
When the President is obeying the law he can face any hearing, as can anyone appointed by him. When they stonewall every attempt to gain more of a picture into what was done and who called the shots it creates a reather wide sweeping narrative.
Fitzgerald was right, a dark cloud hangs over the Vice President and by extension the Presidency. Your hero Bush is scared of the light for a reason. Scrubbing his Nat'l Air Guard records foreshadowed the shadowy expanse of unstated powers he tries to grasp at this time.
He's always got something to hide.
Luckyoldson said...
"[I] love all of the inane comments regarding the "democratic" congress and their horrible polling. first of all, they effectively only hold a one vote majority...."
That argument would be significantly stronger if it were the case that an active House had passed a glut of legislation that was stalled pending Senate approval, wherein the appeal to Lieberman as the controlling vote would come into play.
Post a Comment