Thinking Right

By jbmlaw

March 22, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Hard to imagine our friends on the left trying to gin up a controversy with no law and no evidence on their side, isn’t it? (giggle) I have already suggested on this blog that I thought the firing of the out-of-step prosecutors was handled badly – no intelligent manager ever unnecessarily disparages the ones he fires, and that happened here, entirely due to negligence. That negligence created the dispute. However, political appointees have, and deserve, no license beyond that granted by those accountable to the public. If anything I believe the Bush White House has been insufficiently involved in developing a coordinated prosecutorial strategy. If they wanted to fire all 111 or however many there are, that seems to me to be well within their authority.

Great essay today in the WSJ with generally the same perspective as Jim Wooten, at http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009818

Alternatively, if you prefer your analysis with humor, http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009811

By Southern Democrat

March 22, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Predictable response by both the Democrats and by Mr. Wooten. There is no constitutional confrontation yet, nor should there be, the expansion of executive power (wanted by both sides of the aisle) needs to be checked now and again.

All the president and attorney general had to say was that the U.S. Attorneys were not carrying out the mandates of the Atty Gen to the best of their abilities and nothing else would’ve happened. It’s the cover-up, stupid!!!

Out of curiosity, where will those strict constructionist judges find executive privilege in the ol’ Constitution? (And don’t say separation of powers b/c it ain’t there.)

By Dennis

March 22, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Regarding you column of today, I find it amazing, Mr. Wooten, that an intelligent person either cannot or will not admit that the entire past six years of the Bush administration have not been filled with one lie after another.

That’s taking party loyality (or, in this case, neoconism) a little too far.

Ask a Georgia high school dropout.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Southern Democrat

March 22, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

Apologies for the multiple postings. Some computer errors apparently.

By Bob

March 22, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

Removing the attorneys because of poor performance would be one thing. Removing them because they were or were not pursing cases because of the politics involved is another. All the removed attorneys had glowing performance evaluations but were pursing Republicans or not pursing Democrats.

If they White House had nothing to hid why are they afraid of testimony under oath and being recorded and made public?

Would silence there critics and help Gonzales keep his job. IF there was nothing wrong.

By ron

March 22, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

If there is a smart way and a stupid way to handle a situation,trust George to pick the latter.Now things have to be covered up and that’s when it will get interesting.Stay tuned.

By getalife

March 22, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

Stick to the local stuff Jim.

The American people are sick of the lies.

Resign already.

Geez.

By Jeff

March 22, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

Why are they so afraid to take the oath?

That’s the only question that really matters.

By Jeff

March 22, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

Ya know something, I know a little bit about the hades that your life can become when people start twisting your words and/ or taking them out of context. That said, I’m sticking with the President and AG on this one. The dems are just out to make the President look bad, thinking that they can ride that into the White House. Me? I pray that the American public sees right through the smokescreen and votes every single one of the lying burros out of office!

By time to pass gas

March 22, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

the administration does not want to lie down and be anally raped publicly by a bunch of demoNcrats. whilst the demoNcrats have a point that the whole situation odiously stinks of partisan politiks, there is no reason for the administration to just submit to it. political butchery goes on on every side in washington every day, so the administration’s stand is the correct one. they are not afraid to tell the truth, they are just not willing to publicly hung with their own rope.

By harold

March 22, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

like they been tellin’ us since sept 12, 2001: if you have nothing to hide there is nothing to fear.

right? right?

why doesnt congress just use the patriot act and eavesdrop on them? how about congress not subpoena these folks but instead capture and torture them? that would get us some confessions for sure

By shibuii

March 22, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

We now live in the era of “manufactured scandals”. This, along with the “1984” ad for Obama that got the creator fired from his job, are perfect examples of this. It is the President’s priority to hire and fire those who he is constitutionally able to.

By harold

March 22, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

TORTURE GONZALES UNTIL HE CONFESSES!!!!

By sherman

March 22, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

If the White House had any credibility then the Presidents offer would may sense ,but Sampson has resigned and Gonzales has already “been interviewed and lied” The Congress has a duty to act as a Check and Balance of Power ,for whatever reason the previous Congress exercised no over-site and this Administration took full advantage of no oversite..also these are Congressional hearing and the President does not get to set the rules as to how the hearings are held. Why don’t they want to testify under oath ?Politics,everything within the Beltway is politics …what else is New.Another case of the this Administration thinking that they are above the Law and Rules that apply to the rest of us.

By getalife

March 22, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Subpoena every single one of them every everyday like they did Clinton.

Karma.

Sick of lies.

By Curious Observer

March 22, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

The entire affair is a monumental waste of time and energy. If this administration can’t be persuaded to follow the law on eavesdropping and other matters, and if the president feels authorized to issue signing statements that directly contradict the intent of bills that Congress passes, why should Congress believe that a subpoena will mean anything?

And guess who has to enforce any subpoena issued by Congress. The Attorney General’s office! Yes, I’m certain that Gonzales and his army of neocons will be stampeding to issue warrants to themselves.

By melo

March 22, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

If there is no transgression, nothing will stick. U cannot manufacture evidence to convict Karl Rove!Right Mr Woowooten

So why not just testify under oath.Are u a liar?

Why is the Prez afraid of the oath? The guilty are afraid!!

By J

March 22, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

I love how the president whose administration has ALWAYS put politics first shrieks like a stuck pig that others are playing politics. The irony here: if they had admitted up-front that they wanted to clear out the Atty’s for political reasons, most would likely have resigned without a peep. But, since the administration was dumb enough to use the “performance issues” dodge, the fired Atty’s have no choice but to try and clear their names. The Bushies have clearly lost their mojo (approval ratings around 30% will do that, though).

Anyway, regardless of how you spin this, it simply comes down to: why won’t they testify under oath, or on the record? And it’s hard to reach any conclusion other than “they can’t/won’t tell the truth.”

Wooten is actually correct on one thing: if Bush caves now (without at least putting up a fight), the blood will be in the water, and Congress will move in for the kill. Still, the president is going to lose this particular fight one way or another - either he’ll have to give in, or stick it out and take a further beating in the public eye.

You can only shield liars and political hacks for so long before it comes back to bite you in the butt!!!

By CJ

March 22, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

Witch hunt? Fishing expedition? It’s typical for targets of legitimate investigations to attack investigators and prosecutors. Bill Campbell did it. So did Ken Lay. Tom Delay is still doing it. Now the President and his apologists are using the same tactics.

President Bush has repeatedly shown that he has no respect for the law. From international treaties to the Geneva Conventions to the U.S. Constitution, this President thinks that he should be able to carry out his job as any authoritarian does – without oversight and without consequences. He can’t. Unfortunately, up until now the previous Congress didn’t do its job, leaving the work to this Congress.

Contrary to Jim’s comments, Bush does have a choice. Executive Privilege is not absolute and cannot be used to block criminal investigations. Bush can choose, for once, to respect the law and respect Congress’ oversight authority. Since the Justice Department itself is under a cloud and since the DOJ Office of Special Counsel can’t be expected to investigate itself, the only means of investigating potential wrongdoing by the White House would be through Congress. It’s refreshing to finally have a Congress that actually does its job.

By JK

March 22, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten, can you please refresh our memories as to what you were writing about “The Politics of Subpeona” back in 1998/1999? Or do I need to sign up and pay for access to the AJC’s archives?

If you have nothing to hide, please trot out some of those columns for us, will you? Otherwise, it we’ll just have the same points regurgitated all day. Thank you SO MUCH!

By J

March 22, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Just to make things more fun, here’s a classic piece from current White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 3/29/98 under the lovely title “Executive Privilege is a Dodge”:

Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.

By Rod

March 22, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

Imagine, George Bush acting unethically!!! MY GOD!! Why couldn’t we see this coming while he was screwing over the country?!?!

What a waste.

By the way Jim, seriously - you did a horrid job of editing your piece today. Several misspelled words and poor grammar.

By Howard

March 22, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

Jim…George W. Bush is now reaping the fruits of what he has sown over the last six years…what did he sow?? Namely…a spineless, “can’t we just get along” philosophy…similiar to what his daddy did. You cannot negotiate or try to get along with two groups of people: Islamic terrorists and liberal Democrats. You have toclean house with them and leave them hanging out to dry. Bush has pursued this tepid approach of his for a long time and now that his party is not in control anymore…partly thanks to the GOP having no backbone whatsoever…he is facing the realization that these people do not want to get along with him and his fellow butt-kissers in the GOP…they want his scalp and if not his? Then everyone and anyone under him! He is is least trying to fight back now…he won’t get any help from the liberal media. Isn’t it odd…when it comes to fighting the enemies of this country, the GOP shows no fear. But when it comes to fighting the very people who would bring down this country from within…just to gain total control over people’s lives…they run for cover. The liberal Democrats?? When it comes to fighting the enemies of this country…they run for cover. When it comes to cutting throats and back-stabbing and ruining people’s lives in order to gain political control of the USA…they will go any lengths possible. Oh…I leave you with my tried and true definition of a liberal Democrat: A hypocritical busy-body who knows the best way to spend your money and run your life!!!

By Van

March 22, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

CJ,

“From international treaties to the Geneva Conventions to the U.S. Constitution”

You will have to give examples if you want a debate on the issues. Like all good little democraps, it is the severity of the allegation and not the severity of the charge.

By harold

March 22, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

Harold thinks Jim did a horrid job of editing your piece today because his heart is just not in it anymore, but this stuff is his paycheck so he continues to barf it up. Its ok Jim we understand! Everybody sells out eventually, heh. Even Harold.

By Redneck Convert

March 22, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

Well, I see the libruls are ganging up on my President. Gabbing about firing people and all. They wouldn’t be fired in the 1st place if they just went after Democrats and left Republicans alone. What good is a election if things is just going to be the same, godless libruls going after good conservatives?

When you elect me president I will put a stop to all the librul hollering. I promise just to get rid of Congress. On top of putting all the illegals in the army and using the death penalty on everybody arrested and giving you all big tax cuts. We don’t need Congress. My President proved that. He just goes on and does what he wants, it don’t matter what the law is. If the President listened to Congress we would probly be losing the war. Instead of kicking butt over there.

The mail is kinda slow. I ain’t got nothing from you folk yet. But if you think Bush is good just wait to see how good a President I am. Just remember to send your money to Committee to Elect Redneck Convert for President, c/o Simpsons Trailer Park, Dawsonville, GA. Thanking you for your support.

By Peter

March 22, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Gee Jim…..the president is perfect, and has never told a lie………

HA HA HA……….

The War has been fantastic for all…..especially the lucky soldiers who have such great support from this administration!!!!!

By JP

March 22, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

I support the current Congress in its desire to restore some oversight and accountability to the White House.

Bush’s “offer” to have officials speak off the record and unrecorded, not to mention not under oath, is insulting and ridiculous. Clinton’s aides testified—so should Bush’s. End of story.

The claim that this is “politics by subpoena” is childishly immature: if our leaders’ aides weren’t advising the President to do things that would embarrass him when made public, Bush wouldn’t need to claim ‘Executive privilege.’

6 years of unaccountable leadership is enough, and thank God it’s over.

Also - Tom Price proves again why he should have been defeated.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

March 22, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Harold makes a good point, and Cherry Picker agrees:

Patriots should feel proud to testify under oath. They should not worry that their lines are being tapped or that their library book activity is being monitored…Patriots who love this country have nothing to fear.

C’mon Karl, the dreaded Dems are questioning your love of freedom. Are you going to stand for that, turdblossom?

Put your hand on that bible and and wear that flag proudly buddy.

I really want to see you swear to tell the truth Rove…I know you have it in you. I KNOWS it!

By harold

March 22, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

cherry picker is right! if these guys don’t want to testify under oath it’s because they hate america and most of all they hate the bible and jesus!

rove! gonazeles! bush! why do you hate the bible and jesus? it should be an honor to place your hand on any bible and swear to tell the truth!!! unless you hate jesus

By jm

March 22, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw@10:12 and Mr. Wooten is correct that the president through the attorney general has the right to remove any and all US attorneys. I wonder though, if President Bush would be willing to use the pre-Patriot Act method of having the newly appointed Attorneys go through Senate confirmation process rather than having the current Attorney General hand pick the replacements.

Of course there is the whole manner of providing misleading information regarding the dismissal of the attorneys.

Finally, I think W is acting like a petulant child who is finally being told “NO” after years of getting his way.

By RG

March 22, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

This article hits exactly on the Democrats’ case. If there is no law behind them, and Bush and the White House have nothing to hide, then WHY NOT SPEAK UNDER OATH? Either Bush IS hiding something, or he’s just foolishly making himself look suspicious. A show of good faith at this point would make him look a lot better, not to mention providing less fuel for the press.

By Joe L

March 22, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

RG - The reason that Bush is fighting this is because the public knows it’s a minor issue and he doesn’t come off as badly and can spin it as political manuevering by the Dems and he can set a precedent of “executive privilege” for refusing subpoenas. This is so he can avoid the truly damaging subpoenas coming down the pike in the near future.

The fight is not about this issue it’s about putting Congress in it’s place.

By harold

March 22, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

bush claims if he caves this time then it’s going to happen again and again (implying it like making deals with terrorists) but what could possibly shut down the democrats next time they might want to do this? having done it this time and ahving rove and gonazeles and bush come out SQUEAKY clean.

so, rove, gonzaels and bush, oath it up and come out squeaky clean, morons! that’s your ticket outta this the next time you do something mukry/inappropriate looking

maybe they are just fighting so the dems look extra stupid when rove gonzales and bush come out squeaky clean. YEAH that’s it. HAHAHAHAHAHA

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

March 22, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Karl Rove hates the lord baby Jesus.

He hates America and all that it stand for.

Karl Rove eats babies and kills old people….in fact, he kills old people with dead babies.

I think I saw that on Drudge.com somewhere.

By JK

March 22, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

JP, thanks for the Tom Price link! What a smarmy little weasel. When he’s not repeating the GOP talking points of the day as if they’re his own thoughts, he’s whining about how unfairly he’s treated by anyone not GOP. And he does whine a lot! He was smart enough, however, to refuse to debate his challenger last fall, opting only for short, pre-written speeches at “forums.” But that’s okay, since his buddies at the AJC and Appen “newspapers” and 11Alive covered his sissy, swishy little backside. Didn’t ya, Mr. Wooten? (Don’t believe me? Shake his hand sometime. Heh.)

By harold

March 22, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

and because he likes to east old dead babies best, because he prefers to take nourishment through a straw

By harold

March 22, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

so funny He invoke executive privilege

what ever happen to citizen privilege?

the ‘privilege’ to privacy? the ‘privilege’ to be free from unreasonable searches? the ‘privilege’ to not be tortured? the ‘privilege’ not to be detained for months/years without charge or access to attorney?

you remember those ‘privileges’ dont you?

By Brian Curtis

March 22, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

Come on, Bushdrones, you can do better than this! Surely you can dredge up some reason that Bush’s advisors shouldn’t have to testify openly to what they’ve said and done! After all, accountability is for OTHER people, right?

There’s gotta be a way to blame all this on Clinton, there’s just gotta. Now tune in Rush and get your notes, gang; we’re expecting some truly high-pitched hysteria from the wingnuts on this one, and you’ve never let us down before.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

March 22, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

I bet if we put Tom Price and Karl Rove together in a room, Karl would eat Tom. Because Tom’s a baby.

Then he would call Tom’s mom asking for him, and drop a hint that he saw some Deomcrats offer Tom some candy to get into their van.

Because that’s the kinda guy Karl Rove is.

Baby eater. Jesus hater.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

March 22, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

Dobbs is angry. I think he’s gonna bust.

He’s right though. Idiots. All of them.

But they’re OUR idiots, God love ‘em.

Except Karl Rove. God hates Karl Rove. The only reason God lets Karl Rove live is because Karl Rove has a baby in his back pocket that God knows Karl Rove will eat if God makes any sudden moves.

So God waits.

By Mid-South Philosopher

March 22, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Good afternoon, Jim,

I am running way late today.

It is quite possible that the nation is on the verge of facing the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. There is a lot of jabbering from the “talking heads” about the growing likelihood that the Congress will subpoena Karl Halderman…excuse me…Rove, Harriet Miers, and other White House minions.

Although I became disenchanted with the Bush White House sometime ago, in this instance, I believe the President is being overly generous in what he is offering to the committees of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. To allow Halderman…excuse me….Rove, Miers, and the others to testify under oath, with a transcript in the making, would simply make an already ethically deficient administration look even more seedy.

More important than “Georgie” Bush’s legacy, however, is the preservation of the principle of executive privilege. In the absence of criminal activity, the preservation of this doctrine is of paramount importance.

In this case, there appears to have been no criminal activity on the part of the White House in the firing of the eight federal district prosecutors…a lot of seedy politics…but nothing criminal. Consequently, Karl Halderman…excuse me…Rove, Harriet Miers, and the rest of the menagerie should be kept off the hot seat.

There is a way for the Congress to deal with the issue.

Alphonso…excuse me…Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General, while a part of the Executive Branch, is not protected in this instance by the doctrine of executive privilege. Consequently, the opportunity for a post Saint Valentine’s Day, post Easter Rising massacre and blood-letting when he appears before the respective committees is a real possibility. In his public pronouncements on this issue, he has, thus far, looked like a guilty middle school student caught running out of the restroom with tobacco stain on his mouth. The Democrats will have him for lunch in the committee hearings.

If the Congress persists in demanding that the Bush aides testify under oath and in public and if the courts ultimately agree, a significant wound will be inflicted on the Executive Branch. The ineptitude of the current administration notwithstanding, I am not in favor of that.

Besides, the Democrats should not want to cut-off their noses to spite their faces. After all, Hillary may be in office soon, and, if so, you can bet that she will need all the executive privilege the Democrats can muster!

By jbmlaw

March 22, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

I agree, in part, with Dennis @ 10:21 – I think it requires a particular intelligence level to believe, “the entire past six years of the Bush administration have … been filled with one lie after another.” I think Dennis is correct that high school dropout level is about right.

Dear all of you silly people whining about the “unwillingness to testify under oath,” if I get you under oath, I can convict you and you don’t actually have to be guilty of anything, and I’m just a marginally competent attorney. I always advise clients and friends to say nothing, refuse to offer any statement at all. What you should fear, reasonably, is prosecutorial indiscretion. The method is to use other people’s (taxpayer) money to break the target financially, and then offer them a cheap plea bargain. Not rocket science, unless you are too dumb to see the end game.

By getalife

March 22, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

30 Clinton aides testified 54 times

Keep em coming.

By Dennis

March 22, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

The fact is that there is more to this business of replacing Attorney Generals by bypassing congress than meets the eye.

Anyone watching the senate hearings just a few minutes ago noted that Arlen Specter tried to weaken the impact on Bush by saying, in effect, let’s take their offer to go behind closed doors and if we aren’t happy, then we can get the subpoena.

Specter’s nose is brown from running interference for Bush.

Fortunately that didn’t wash, because a condition of Bush to go behind closed doors was that afterward there would be no subpoenas.

There’s more to this than we know; Specter’s office was responsible for the [no congressional confirmation needed for attorney generals] in the first place.

I agree with others that there is more to this than what’s on the surface and that there are other senators involved and maybe even bigger issues that this visible issue is a small part of - including an attempted coup of some sort by the Bush administration and others (congressional members) to circumvent our congressional system has taken place.

This too could lead more to what’s really behind the Plame affair and the Bush lies that led up to attacking Iraq.

Let’s just hope the democrats don’t cave.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Mid-South Philosopher

March 22, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this

On an entirely different matter, I just heard Elizabeth Edwards. Like her husband or not, there is one courageous and classy lady!

By Keyboard Warrior

March 22, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

Mid-South Philosopher wrote, “In the absence of criminal activity, the preservation of this doctrine [executive privilege] is of paramount importance. In this case, there appears to have been no criminal activity on the part of the White House in the firing of the eight federal district prosecutors…”

Incorrect.

It appears that at least one member of the Justice Department might have lied to Congress about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys (illegal), at least one U.S. attorney may have been fired to hinder a specific ongoing investigation where the target was Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis (illegal), and other U.S. attorneys may have been fired to influence the outcome of decisions already made on accusations of wrongdoing by members of the Democratic Party (illegal).

Under the circumstances, executive privilege should not and does not apply.

By baret

March 22, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Your partisan remarks are hillarious.. should we all ignore the gross injustice of interfering with the ongoing investigations some of these attorny’s had begun against republicans when they were fired…..for this you lay partisan blame……how about the truth , do you care about that?

By harold

March 22, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

the big question is, is the constitution up to this challenge?

it’s already taken quite a beating

how much trampling can it take before it just stays down?

By FrankLeeDarling

March 22, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

I cant wait to see them roast that anti freedom ,anti american pig Rove go ahead and put your hand on that bible kkkarl that you have been shoving down our throats and squeel like the pig you are

By getalife

March 22, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

“Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

“Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

“One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.”

Hypocrite Snow job.

Keep those those subpoenas coming to get rid of these failures.

Geez.

By Lord Doom

March 22, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

There’s something peculiar about Edwards. Although Doom’s heart goes out to his family, you have to wonder what compels a young attractive man to marry an older and not as attractive woman. Domm senses homo undertones.

By Brian Curtis

March 22, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

JBM: I wholeheartedly agree with you. It’s a certainty that no high-level official should EVER have to be held accountable to the public for any plan or action they take, for fear of being financially ruined.

And what’s honesty and accountability to the American people they serve compared to the horrible specter of being faced with direct questions? And in PUBLIC, no less!

Nixon would be proud, Mr. Law-n-Order.

By Brian Curtis

March 22, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

JBM: I wholeheartedly agree with you. It’s a certainty that no high-level official should EVER have to be held accountable to the public for any plan or action they take, for fear of being financially ruined.

And what’s honesty and accountability to the American people they serve compared to the horrible specter of being faced with direct questions? And in PUBLIC, no less!

Nixon would be proud, Mr. Law-n-Order.

By Dennis

March 22, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

“Hypocrite Snow job.”

Precisely!

The same goes for Wooten’s column today.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignornant one to deny it.

By R W JOhnson

March 22, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

Great idea to have ‘political appointees’ (or even elected office holders) accountable to the public. Even better idea, is to ask they tell what in going on (military secrets excluded) in public, under oath and for the record. If they can’t, what are they trying (but not succeeding) to hide?

By JoeD

March 22, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

Come everyone. Quit your complaining. Tony Snow (job) assures us that the WH aides will give Congress the whole truth and nothing but the truth if they chat up Congress without the trouble of an oath. Shouldn’t that be enough reassurance for all of us, particularly since this administration is the paragon of truth, justice and informaiton sharing?

By bostonqban

March 22, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten is apparently another mouthpiece for the GOP leadership. and notice folks, how this “journalist” circumvents one teensy weensy little important point:

If nothing wrong happened sir, then the president should have no problem with his aides testifying under oath, right?

But lies is what this administration is all about. And blindly playing “follow the leader” (“cover for the leader” is more like it)is what this “journalist” and his ilk are all about. The GOP MUST be REFORMED. No more lies.

By RG

March 22, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

This article hits exactly on the Democrats’ case. If there is no law behind them, and Bush and the White House have nothing to hide, then WHY NOT SPEAK UNDER OATH? Either Bush IS hiding something, or he’s just foolishly making himself look suspicious. A show of good faith at this point would make him look a lot better, not to mention providing less fuel for the press.

By harold

March 22, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

so after gonazeles’ justice department fails to enforce the congressional subpoenas, what happens? do the members of congress get out their guns and invade the justice department??

By Lord Doom

March 22, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

Jim Wooten,

Doom knows something good to talk about: Since Atlanta has just passed the 5 million population milestone, how about a blog dealing with the status of our city and its growth. Where are we now, as it relates to the impact here and the rest of the country. What makes Atlanta a good or bad place to live? Why should anyone move here or stay here? What’s up with the beltline and its potential impact?

You know, stuff like that.

By jbmlaw

March 22, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

Dear Brian @ 1:38, the flaw in your argument is the predicate that interrogation of the political opponent would be honest. When has any leftist done anything honest?

By FrankLeeDarling

March 22, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

Gitmo for them all

By Carl

March 22, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this

The reason why they do not want the people under oath and transcripted is simple. The Democrats are looking for anyway they can strike out at those Advisors. It is just as illegal to lie under oath as it is to Congress which is why that was offered. What was not wanted was the it to be transcripted so that the democrats could hammer and nitpick at the advisors testimony. Especially since all it takes is for an Advisor to mispeak what day they spoke about something and then they get charged with lying to congress. However, what I would like to know is don’t these law makers have something better to do than wasting out tax dollars pursueing a case where the statement they work at the Presidents Discretion is used as far as their employ. Honestly if the President has that much authority over these peoples jobs then honestly he could have fired them for wearing a black suit instead of blue to work. The Democrats are on a fishing expedition and it seems our President has taken the bait.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

March 22, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

JBM, via Brian Curtis…

That’s right. Never say nuthin. That’ll only get ya in trouble. Especially if you’re an elected official…don’t say nuthin, unless you’re runnin’ for re-election. Then say whatever it is you think they want to hear. Complain about taxes…they love that.

And, by all means if you find yourself in the system, clog it up until your enemies run out of money. Big tobacco had that one about right. Bankrupt those poor suckers and then spit tobacco juice on them on the way out.

Those chumps out there in consumerland will never figure it out. They’re too busy worryin about who got kicked off Idol last night…thinking they’re all up on the issues cause they see commercials for Bill O’Loudly.

By jbm is a condescending...

March 22, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

And jbm moves even farther out on the margins of the debate.

By Nathan Montague

March 22, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

“Bush has not choice now but to fight. He faces two years of politics by subpoena.”

The administration has changed its story too many times, inviting further inquiry. It’s not just a matter of sloppiness. There are reasonable questions about whether or not Federal Prosecutors have been taken off cases involving political allies of the administration.

Bush faces two years of subpoena because his administration has developed an arrogance, given the six previous years of little or no oversight by a Republican-controlled Congress. The Congress is just beginning to reassert its co-equality and the administration seems to find that offensive.

If Rove and Miers can stand in front of the nation and show that the Democrats are crying wolf, then I predict that will put an end to any “show trials” in the future.

By Cheryl S. Ross

March 22, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

I agree with most of the posters. Mr. Wooten did you have the same opinion when Clinton’s aids were called to testify before Congress? Without even checking, I bet if one were to revisit your articles from the Clinton Presidency, I am almost certain you hand an entirely different opinion.

Republicans are masters spewing hate. Their hypocrisy is open and obvious. The reason I could never consider being a Republican because truth and facts are fiction in the Republican Party. Yes, these incompetent liars should be hauled before Congress, placed under oath, and forced to testify. Yes, Congress has the right to demand their appearance the Constitution gives them that right. If the Bush administration refuses to honor the subpoenas, then impeachment proceedings should begin immediately. I am sure Mr. Wooten you would agree Congress has the right to impeach a President.

By Mr. Investigator

March 22, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

When has any leftist done anything honest?

When he called you a liar. Upon what is your argument predicated? Oh yes, “Leftists are dishonest.” You are embarrassing yourself. Admit that your lying is compulsive and beyond your control. Get help, liar.

By Dusty

March 22, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

You are so right, Jim Wooten…

This is a Congress and a party without an agenda except to trash Bush and the war in Iraq. Ultimately, the country will reject that stategy and the party that pursues it.

Yes, Jim, that’s the Democrats for you. If there are any “thinking” Democrats in Congress, they must be hiding. The gross and rude behavior of Waxman and Boxer represents the attitude of all of them.

What a disgrace to our country to have politicians whose only goal is to trash the presidency and lose the war.

By FrankLeeDarling

March 22, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

if democrats are on a fishing trip at least they are going to a well stocked lake

By Brian Curtis

March 22, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

JBM: I make no such claim that the interrogation would be honest, sincere, or well intentioned. But it would be PUBLIC.

And we certainly can’t have that, now can we?

By Nathan Montague

March 22, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

“Bush has not choice now but to fight. He faces two years of politics by subpoena.”

The administration has changed its story too many times, inviting further inquiry. It’s not just a matter of sloppiness. There are reasonable questions about whether or not Federal Prosecutors have been taken off cases involving political allies of the administration.

Bush faces two years of subpoena because his administration has developed an arrogance, given the six previous years of little or no oversight by a Republican-controlled Congress. The Congress is just beginning to reassert its co-equality and the administration seems to find that offensive.

If Rove and Miers can stand in front of the nation and show that the Democrats are crying wolf, then I predict that will put an end to any “show trials” in the future.

By JoeD

March 22, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

This administration has done a fine job of trashing the presidency all by itself.

By Cheryl S. Ross

March 22, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

I agree with most of the posters. Mr. Wooten did you have the same opinion when Clinton’s aids were called to testify before Congress? Without even checking, I bet if one were to revisit your articles from the Clinton Presidency, I am almost certain you hand an entirely different opinion.

Republicans are masters when it comes to spewing hate. No group does it better. Their hypocrisy is open and obvious. The reason I could never consider being a Republican because truth and facts are fiction in the Republican Party.

Yes, these incompetent liars should be hauled before Congress, placed under oath, and forced to testify. Yes, Congress has the right to demand their appearance the Constitution gives them that right. If the Bush administration refuses to honor the subpoenas, then impeachment proceedings should begin immediately. I am sure Mr. Wooten you would agree Congress has the right to impeach a President.

By Brian Curtis

March 22, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

JBM: I make no such claim that the interrogation would be honest, sincere, or well intentioned. But it would be PUBLIC.

And we certainly can’t have that, now can we?

By getalife

March 22, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS AN UNPRECEDENTED RECORD OF CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS

“Democratic White Houses Have Historically Cooperated:

A Congressional Research Service report identified 62 instances of Democratic presidential advisors testifying before Congress in recent decades, 54 of them during the Clinton administration.”

Man up cowards and testify under oath. Period.

Like they said about the illegal NSA wiretaps, if you got nothing to hide……..

By bostonqban

March 22, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten is apparently another mouthpiece for the GOP leadership. and notice folks, how this “journalist” circumvents one teensy weensy little important point:

If nothing wrong happened sir, then the president should have no problem with his aides testifying under oath, right?

But lies is what this administration is all about. And blindly playing “follow the leader” (“cover for the leader” is more like it)is what this “journalist” and his ilk are all about. The GOP MUST be REFORMED. No more lies.

By bostonqban

March 22, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten is apparently another mouthpiece for the GOP leadership. and notice folks, how this “journalist” circumvents one teensy weensy little important point:

If nothing wrong happened sir, then the president should have no problem with his aides testifying under oath, right?

But lies is what this administration is all about. And blindly playing “follow the leader” (“cover for the leader” is more like it)is what this “journalist” and his ilk are all about. The GOP MUST be REFORMED. No more lies.

By Realist

March 22, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this

Looking through the AJC’s archives, around 1998 and 1999. Jim! You are a huge hypocrite. Shame on you…

*One-party rule leaves system open to abuse Date: November 1, 1998 Publication: The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution Page Number: G7 Word Count: 767

Just in time for the election, state Rep. Roger Byrd of Hazlehurst, a conservative Democrat-in-temptation — temptation, that is, to jump ship to the Republican Party — announces the just-made decision to put a million-dollar state technical and vocational school in the Telfair County portion of his district. Surprise. Check this year’s state budget. Nowhere does it mention any money or any plan to put a state school there. Yet with House Appropriations Committee Chairman Terry…*

*

Clinton eroding presidential power Date: June 3, 1998 Publication: The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution Page Number: A12 Word Count: 315

THIS NIXONESQUE White House —- stonewalling, slow-walking, evading, desperate to find a political solution in the court of public opinion —- has opted for yet another legal maneuver intended to buy time past the November elections.

President Clinton has abandoned his spurious claim of executive privilege for aides in the matter of his truthfulness in the Monica Lewinsky investigation, which the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to hear on an expedited basis, and has decided to push instead a..*

By Brian Curtis

March 22, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

JBM: I make no such claim that the interrogation would be honest, sincere, or well intentioned. But it would be PUBLIC.

And we certainly can’t have that, now can we?

By JoeD

March 22, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

This administration has done a fine job of trashing the presidency all by itself.

By Cletus Snow

March 22, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

The Dims have no agenda their only activities are trash Bush,What a shame 2 years of no accomplishment.I wish they were smart enough to find something worthwhile to do.

By harold

March 22, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

the public finally smells blood! let’s get these crooks out of office and behind bars. the bars of gitmo. with a electric cowpokes up their asses for questioning!

By FrankLeeDarling

March 22, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

the only question that will be left after this fishing trip will be whether to fry our large mouth bass(Rove) or to stuff him and mount him on the wall

By Dusty

March 22, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

Oh, it is not hard to see.

Everybody except Democrats are lying in their teeth.

To prove this point, all Democrats will attack the President, investigate a totally legal move by the Justice Department, attach “pork” to a bill directed at funding the military, investigate the “outing” of a CIA employee whom all parties knew she was “out”. Then she recommended her husband for an investigative job which she then denied.

Now the Democrats want to tell the enemy all our military movements so terrorists can take over when we leave Iraq and be ready to set up command centers and killing programs.

This behavior is almost unbelievable. It is vindictive, not liberal. Maybe Gore is right. The earth is warming and Democrats are having a complete meltdown. And it only took one election to do it.

By FrankLeeDarling

March 22, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

the earth is heating up from all decomposing crap Bush and co. have heaped on the american people.

By spaceman109

March 22, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

jim seems to have temporary and selective amnesia since battles over executive privilege and how much power is possessed by either the executive branch or legislative branch have been going on for ages.

the president’s offer for his aides to testify in private, not under oath, and with no inconvenient questions being asked (also known as puffball questions) is ridiculous on its face. if these people are so smugly confident that nothing untoward happened, they should be willing to testify under oath.

tis also been amusing in a strange sort of way to watch how many times their various stories have changed. first they were eager to throw harriet miers under the bus…then they had a change of heart and blamed miscommunication somewhere along the line.

politics gets weirder and weirder…so all that one can do is point and laugh.

By Southerner

March 22, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this

So it is Bush against the rest of the Democrats. People are quik to point out that Bush is not doing a good job. How about the rest of the elected officials serving in Washington. What have they done this week? They are quik to point out the eight judges that were fired, but how about the 53 judges that were fired when Bill was sleeping with Monica? I bet Hillary can tell you a little about this. I wish they all would get off of their butts and do something about imigrants, health care, home foreclosures across the nation, and many other issues. Can anyone tell me what the Democrates really passed in the first “100 hours” of meeting this year and who has is affected?

By Jackie

March 22, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

This Administration always tells “part of the truth,” which is a lie, seems to have their pants on fire and there is no means or method of putting it out. More BBQ sauce.

By Realist

March 22, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

Southerner,

Very well stated…now fill us all in on this administration past “52,595 hours” and who it has affected? Any illegal immigration problems corrected? Any health care issues resolved? NCLB is a big winner, right?

By Jackie

March 22, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

There are reports in the Washington Post that detail how a career Federal Prosecutor handling the tobacco lawsuit was interfered with by the White House in bringing pleas for final punishment to the tobacco comapnies and the fine to be paid from $130 Billion to $10 Billion for the anti-smoking program. Anything this Administration touches seems to be rotten.

By JoeD

March 22, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

And Southerner, please enlighten us on the 53 judges who were fired while Clinton was involved with Monica. That’s a new one on me, especially since federal judges serve life appointments. Please share.

By Dusty

March 22, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

Southerner,

Yes, the Democrats have worked 100 whole hours to create happiness. And they have succeeded.

The terrorists have taken heart. They are fighting and waiting for the schedule of retreat to come. They say the Murtha Movement is “great” and they will be glad to contribute to bases in Okinawa.

So whip up some more white flags, anti-war posters and paint a big yellow stripe down the continental divide. Democrats have spoken!!

By getalife

March 22, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

Jim loves to get lied to.

I am sick of the lies and there have not been any consequences for the lies except no credibility for the lying liars and the ultimate sacrifice for our troops, their families and millions of Iraqis.

It is time for justice.

Hand them over to the Iraqis.

By Jackie

March 22, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

There are reports in the Washington Post that detail how a career Federal Prosecutor handling the tobacco lawsuit was interfered with by the White House in bringing pleas for final punishment to the tobacco comapnies and the fine to be paid from $130 Billion to $10 Billion for the anti-smoking program. Anything this Administration touches seems to be rotten.

By One sweet day ....

March 22, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

Hey where’s time for the trash today? Maybe she took my advice and _ man, I hope _ killed herself?

Hey, who are you and what are you doing with that knife? Hey! HEY! STOP!*

gurgle

one less leftist turd afterbirth pond scum feckpig. all you wanker id hijackers now know better than to mess with your intellectual better. ta ta for now whilst i drive on back home. after i wash this filth off my hands, of course. HUGE SMIRK

By DD

March 22, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

Lying to Congress go to war. Bush should be thankful he still has two years left in the White House.

By Lord Doom

March 22, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

DD,

Wow, what an original comment. I’ll bet you stayed up all night thinking of that one.

By Southerner

March 22, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

Realist, This administration sent a tax refund check to all taxpayers. They reduced the amount of taxes paid by me personally. Just wait and see who gets a tax decrease if Hillary or Obama get elected? It won’t be you or me. Start putting money in peoples pockets and see how many people you make happy. Start taking money out of peoples pockets and see who gets mad. No party has fixed immigration or health care because they don’t know how. Let’s get someone in the White House that has the balls to do what is right. When will the independent party step up to the plate?

By Dusty

March 22, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

DD,

I am thankful Bush has two more years in the White House. The thought of a Kerry in the White House is down right scary. Or the thought of a future with Hillary…..ooooo…..Yes, there is such a thing as torture!!

By FrankLeeDarling

March 22, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

The only way a goverment can truly be for the people is if it is acountable to the people.time for this goverment to put its hand on the good book on be held accountable.Just tell the truth and there should be nothing to fear.Right?

By Oh I don't know ...

March 22, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

… maybe Hillary will entertain us with her funny accents, while Bill plays the sax. You can sew the costumes.

By jbmlaw

March 22, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this

Dear Brian @ 2:16, you raise a fair distinction. The victims of the gulag called it a “show trial.”

Dear JoeD @ 3:00, I don’t know, but Southerner may be talking about administrative law judges. ALJs are not Article III judges, but are technically employees of the executive agencies. While I admit that one particular ALJ is the best and smartest judge I ever saw at any level – I think his name was Stephen Charno - for the most part suspension of the ALJ program is the best thing that could ever happen in this country. Allows an agency to bring charges, which are refereed by an agency employee, and ruled (on appeal) by the board running the Federal agency; no right to jury trial, and the standard of review in real courts thereafter is a high “clearly erroneous” standard.

By Debbie

March 22, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

Southerner,

If anybody is taking money out of other people’s pockets, it’s you. You do so by voting for those who run up the national debt leading to higher taxes for future generations.

If all you care about are tax cuts, then that’s your prerogative. However, I for one will vote for candidates who seek to balance the budget and pay off the national debt — by any means necessary — so my kids and their kids won’t have to.

By FrankLeeDarling

March 22, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

yes taxes will have to be raised because democrates are responsible we pay our bills.unlike the republicans who spend spend spend then run out on the bill.

By Shar

March 22, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

Unfortunately for every one of us, this Administration has taken gross liberties with the truth and equally gross advantage of one party rule, so correctly decried by Mr. Wooten. No Administration in history has done more to expand the power of the executive branch or been more abetted in its efforts that the layabout Congress we had until last November. The current Congress, and the public, are consequently very leery of taking anything that the Administration or its representatives say at face value, particularly when the first response has been contradictory, retracted, “clarified”, etc. And, given the disastrous effects of our past blind trust, I think that skepticism is not a bad thing.

There are very few who would say that the President does not or should not have the right to hire and fire those positions that serve at his/her discretion. However, when we are talking about the primary federal law enforcement representatives in each region of the country, the President’s discretion has to be balanced by protection of the obligation that those represenatives wield the power of the government in an even-handed way. If Justice is not blind, it is not justice. Should the public lose faith in the fairness of enforcement, the rule of law is weakened.

The firings of these US Attorneys followed attempts at partisan intervention in some of the cases their offices were pursuing; they were called for by partisan politicians who are not in the executive branch; they were in contradiction to the excellent performance reviews that most of these US Attorneys received; at least one was done to reward a less qualified political hack; and they have been poorly explained. The Attorney General’s aide, who orchestrated the firings, put out an email recommending that the new Patriot Act provisions be invoked, not for security reasons but to bypass Congressional oversight and included tactics for delaying response to any objections until the end of the current Administration.

President Bush has justified his warrantless wiretap program by insisting that those with nothing to hide need not fear it. Mr. Gonzales wrote the opinion upon which Mr. Bush based his decision to ignore the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of enemy combatants, and which relies upon slippery legal interpretations. Mr. Bush has chosen to place himself above the law through his bizarre use of “signing statements” to indicate the parts of a law that he does not feel subject to. For six years, the public has been growing increasingly alarmed at his usurpation of power and willingness to attack and marginalize as “unAmerican” any protest against his actions.

There may not be any problem with the firings. However, Mr. Bush has squandered the benefit of the doubt. Sunshine is always a good antidote to political fungal rot, which only grows in the dark. The Republicans are hoist in their own petard on this one - they hounded Clinton aides to testify, and their failure to hold this President to account has cost their party enormous credibility. Executive privilege survived its assault under Clinton, and it will survive sworn, open testimony on the firings of the US Attorneys as well.

By Dennis

March 22, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

By Southerner March 22, 2007 3:21 PM | “Realist, This administration sent a tax refund check to all taxpayers. They reduced the amount of taxes paid by me personally.”

I agree that you and I and others got these tax breaks, but our kids will be the ones to actually pay for them.

“Just wait and see who gets a tax decrease if Hillary or Obama get elected? It won’t be you or me.”

You’re right. The corporations will still control the White House and they will write off their investments.

“When will the independent party step up to the plate?”

Yes, indeed, oh Lord, how long till then?

Just read an article a few minutes ago that this attorney business is being fought so vigorously in order not to expose the corruption of this administration - of which there is lots including using our military in Iraq for the purpose of lining big time pockets.

Should we say “war criminals”.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Brian Curtis

March 22, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

JBM: Gosh, I had NO idea the Democrats were wielding such raw, unstoppable power that Bush’s only hope is to keep his advisors’ comments and actions secret from the American people. First it’s “financial ruin,” now it’s gulags and show trials?

Really, just how scared IS Bush of telling the truth? And more to the point, just how far will you go in defending his “right” to lie and keep secrets from us?

By MrLiberty

March 22, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this

The entire administration is filled with war criminals and the congress is worried about the firings of a few prosecutors. There is so much criminal about Mr. Gonzales that someday his picture will likely be in the dictionary next to the word “criminal.”

The congress stopped being a worthwhile body the day they illegally gave up their constitutional responsibility to declare war. Only Congressman Ron Paul is deserving of any respect at all. The rest should all be impeached.

These are indeed dark days for our so-called republic. But those of us who gave up on the Republican and Democratic parties long ago predicted these days would come.

But then again, I guess we have the government we deserve.

By Dennis

March 22, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

By Mr Liberty March 22, 2007 4:17 PM “The entire administration is filled with war criminals and the congress is worried about the firings of a few prosecutors.”

And how many congresspersons and who are they that are a part of this criminality?

Well, just check and see who’s fighting the hardest against the subpoenas of members of the White House.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Ashley

March 22, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this

Mr. Liberty,

I hear you, but we need to remember — the government is effectively us (you and me). We hire and fire our representatives, and it only works when we get informed, pay attention, keep in touch and vote. It’s not right for voters to abdicate their responsibilities as citizens and then complain about evil and corrupt politicians. Maybe that’s what you meant when you referred to “the government we deserve”.

By Dusty

March 22, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this

Oh more liberal palaver,

President Bush said that the Justice Department could testify. But he did set up some rules to keep some confidentiality in that department. This is not called keeping secrets. It is an offer of communication which the Democrats refused. That is a Democratic problem,not the President’s. Democratic Congressmen are not the executive power of this country.

Dennis,

Do you want to designate yourself as a war criminal? The President is not a war criminal any more than you are. The President has done nothing illegal and you know it. You don’t like him and want somebody, anybody, just so they are a Democrat.

Why don’t you think before you run your mouth? You think you are knocking the President and you are. But, are you so dense that you don’t see that you are also harming the country? Lowering the morale of our troops? Encouraging the enemy? Or do you even know that we have a real enemy?

Yes, Virginia, there really is an enemy and it is NOT the President.

By Dusty and Logic = Oil and Water

March 22, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

Dusty wrote, “Do you want to designate yourself as a war criminal?…are you so dense that you don’t see that you are also harming the country? Lowering the morale of our troops? Encouraging the enemy?”

Classic Dusty. If it were up to her, all who disagree with her political point of view would be executed for treason. Nice.

By Dennis

March 22, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this

By Dusty March 22, 2007 4:33 PM | “Oh more liberal palaver, Dennis, Do you want to designate yourself as a war criminal? The President is not a war criminal any more than you are. The President has done nothing illegal and you know it. You don’t like him and want somebody, anybody, just so they are a Democrat.”

I am not a democrat any more than a republican. And, the president IS a war criminal. And if telling the truth is “knocking the president” then let’s get on with it. He deserves to be knocked. Kicked is even better.

Even republicans are SICK of him. (Undrstanding, of course, that neocons simply can’t do any better).

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By rarringt

March 22, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

Ashley,

Well said.

This government, warts and all, is comprised of folks that we empowered through the ballot and the wallet.

We want to complain about how extreme they are. Well, who elected them? Who blindly supported partisanship when what was needed was moderates who would work towards the best interests of the entire nation, rather than the narrow constituencies that elected them.

The Powell Doctrine II applies to domestic as well as foreign policy: you break it, you own it.

Dusty,

The point of sworn testimony is that if done in the open, on the record, and with repercussions if you are caught lying, one is more likely to tell the truth. It is one of the foundations of our justice and political systems.

I know that you may have lost sight of that over the past half dozen years or so, but it’s a really important concept, especially in light of potentially illegal impropriety.

We are, for the time being, still a nation of laws, and the law says that 1) executive privilege doesn’t apply in illegal matters, and 2) Congress has broad authority to explore whether an illegal act(s) has occurred.

If this was 1998, and Clinton was president, you’d be screaming for testimony. You cant become a scholar of executive privilege now, because your guy’s in office.

Same applies to you, Jim. But thanks for helping to enlighten folk in your own special way on what EP is (and isn’t).

By Dusty

March 22, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

To “Dusty & Logic”

I have never said that those who disagree with my political opinion would or should be executed for treason.

But now that you thought of that, maybe it is a good idea. Would you like to volunteer?

Dennis,

Being SICK of someone does not make them a war criminal. Is that the best you can do?

Also, chronic repetition disorder does not impress anyone but psychiatrists. Your last line is getting tres loco.

By Dusty and Logic = Oil and Water

March 22, 2007 5:10 PM | Link to this

Dusty wrote, “I have never said that those who disagree with my political opinion would or should be executed for treason. But now that you thought of that, maybe it is a good idea.”

There’s the Dusty we all know and love.

By rnm

March 22, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this

I’m curious to know what Mr. Wooten had to say about subpoenas issued by the Republican-led Congress during the Clinton Administration. Does anyone know? I bet his articles are archived somewhere and would probably make for a very interesting read given the position he is taking today. Of course, someone is going to attack me as being a craaaazzzzy liberal for suggesting that perhaps there is some hypocrisy going on here.

By Dusty

March 22, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this

rarringt,

Of course, we are a nation of laws. Something new for you?

Well, I’m not a lawyer. Are you? But I believe if you lie to Congress whether you are under oath or not you can be prosecuted. Perjury or something like that.

The thing is, everybody knows that Democrats are trying to make a big deal out of what has always been routine. Nobody is fooled by this big pretense of indignation. It is routinely called “Let’s get Bush.”

I never “ranted” against Clinton. I didn’t have to. The aroma of his distateful acts and his big lies was more than enough. Why add to a perfect scenario?

Yes, there is enlightenment. The first 100 days of Dems was enough to scare anybody. All talk and no walk. That’s the Democrats.

By hamilton

March 22, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

The issue is not with the firings, but with the fact that the DOJ up to and including Gonzalez gave testimony under oath that turned out not to be true. Even the President admitted that it was not acceptable. In that context, why on earth would anyone think it reasonable for the Congress / Democrats to accept testimony in private and not under oath?

As regards privilege, the witnesses can claim that during the hearing if a question comes up that really touches on Executive Branch policy instead of political meddling in the justice system, and they can do it in the open.

The allegation that the Executive Branch sought to tamper with pending investigations for political purposes is a significant one that attacks the integrity of the justice system. Congress ought to investigate those charges, and when it has already had witnesses who are providing erroneous information (or even lying) on the stand, then they ought to insist on testimony under oath.

Asking Congress to act as watchdog, and setting the branches against each other, isn’t a political waste of time. It is how the Founders envisioned the syetem working - to prevent one branch from dominating.

By Killin' Time

March 22, 2007 5:23 PM | Link to this

Oil and Water,

You mean the Dusty we all know and love to hate. She’s no better than the likes of Saddam Hussein — label your political enemies as seditionists, round ‘em up, torture ‘em, and hang ‘em high. Right Dusty?

By JP

March 22, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

Lordy it’s funny to watch conservatives spin and bend to defend Bush’s refusal to own up to what his administration is doing while still maintaining the FACADE of caring about accountability.

Like you people would give Clinton a pass if he had wanted to keep his aides from testifying. It’s hilarious, seriously! Everyone outside of your little pathetic right-wing echo chamber is laughing at you!

By JoeD

March 22, 2007 5:26 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Dusty but I am a lawyer and perjury is limited to testimony under oath. That’s why Dubya doesn’t want his folks to testify under oath.

By K-Squared

March 22, 2007 5:32 PM | Link to this

JoeD,

If you know, what is the distinction between the crime of lying to Congress and the crime of perjury as it specifically relates to testimony given to Congress under oath?

By Dusty

March 22, 2007 5:39 PM | Link to this

To “Oil and Water”,

I don’t know you from Adam’s house cat. It is doubtful that you are lovable. Whisper sweet nothings to someone else.

Killin’ Time,

Don’t think up another phony ID. Use the one you always post under. Then I might answer your usual outpouring of misinformation.

hamilton,

Yep, our Founding Fathers wanted to keep one branch of government from domineering the other. That is why Bush may have to veto the bills put out by a beligerant out of control Congress trying to usurp the Executive power of the President.

Please

By Dennis

March 22, 2007 5:41 PM | Link to this

By Dusty March 22, 2007 5:03 PM Dennis, Being SICK of someone does not make them a war criminal. Is that the best you can do?”

No, Dusty, that/this is not the best that I can do. I can write a treatise complete with the customary notations and researched references, but people like you aren’t going to read anything that doesn’t reinforce what you already think instead of taking a chance that you could learn something.

But, if I’m wrong, please tell us what you’ve read. Perhaps we could discuss it.

“Also, chronic repetition disorder does not impress anyone but psychiatrists. Your last line is getting tres loco.”

Well, that would come in the DSM IV under “Obsessive Personality Disorder”, (You have read the DSM IV?)

You just don’t want to think as deeply as the statement calls for.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By rarringt

March 22, 2007 5:43 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Yes, I am a lawyer. JoeD is correct.

You said,

The thing is, everybody knows that Democrats are trying to make a big deal out of what has always been routine. Nobody is fooled by this big pretense of indignation. It is routinely called “Let’s get Bush.”

Replace the word “Democrats” with “Republicans” and “Bush” with “Clinton,” and that quote would have been right at home in 1998.

We haven’t quite made it through the first 100 days yet, but I see your point. Here’s mine: compared against the first 2,190 days (6 years) of Bush’s tenure, the return of at least some accountability is refresing.

The Dems have a long way to go in terms of doing a good job, but at least they understand the fundamentals of the check and balance system. It was covered in 7th grade civics, in case you forgot.

As I have maintained on multiple occasions, I don’t question a person’s right to speak their mind. I do, however question to what extent someone is thinking independently and in an intellectually honest way, versus how much they’re merely regurgitating what they’ve been spoon fed on conservative TV and radio.

Btw, I’m still looking for a clever way of using “patagonian pothole” in conversation. I’ll keep you updated. :^)

By Lauren

March 22, 2007 5:53 PM | Link to this

Republicans spent years investigating Clinton about White Water and lying about oral sex. The issues of the Bush administration are much more serious but the Republicans now all of a sudden think its a bad idea to investigate scandal in the White House. They must think we have no memory!

By Dusty

March 22, 2007 6:09 PM | Link to this

rarringt,

Let me help you. Your last post was a Patagonian pothole. It hit bottom with the insinuation that I only”regurgitate” some conservative commentators.

Sorry. Not true. I am not a regurgitator of anything but my own thoughts. Well, I do watch Lehrer News Hour but that is about the extent of my TV watching. OK—Masterpiece Theater and a few old movies. I don’t turn the radio on unless there is a tornado in the neighborhood.

Now, about all you lawyers and other miscreants, I will put you under oath. This hullabaloo over the Justice Department is just one more phony indignation by Democrats. Yes or no? No perjury now.

Ha! Gotcha! Watch those potholes.

By JohnD(the actual)

March 22, 2007 6:31 PM | Link to this

Today’s posts are a clear indication of the tenor of the political process and the rancor exhibited on both sides of the aisle.

I agree with those who wish to have the process behind the firings made public but only because the DOJ has admitted to false statements. The attorneys serve at the discretion of the President and he has the right to fire them, however the DOJ seems to have made a mess of the matter. Now let the chips fall where they may.

I also agree with those who have charged the Democrats with being on a mission to discredit the Administration at all costs. The continued charge that Bush lied about the WMD’s and other intelligence is actually the big lie. The constant carping by the Democrats has certainly hindered the War on Terror.

The position of the Left is clear and those on the Right have made their point.

The charge made at this administration of being the most corrupt in history is clearly unsupportable opinion and nothing more than a charge made to inflame the discussion. The immediate prior administration lied, lied, lied, and made the term “politics of personal destruction” a buzzword.

When did the political process become so perverted? During the Clinton administration is the obvious answer.

Prior to electing hillBilly the discourse was more civil. Could the change be a result of the poll-driven manner in which the Democrats conducted business for 8 years? The method was successful but also displayed a lack of moral center and a willingness to take any course that provided the most support.

The US is not a democracy and the presumption of the Founding Fathers was of elected officials who would take the best direction for the country regardless of the personal ramifications. Now we have elected officials on both sides of the aisle attempting to appease each special interest group in order to stay in office and maintain power. Were this not true there would have been action on illegal immigration, the budget deficit, the onerous income tax, the trade deficit and the ongoing threat of a terrorist attack on our shores.

We see nothing but window dressing on all the issues to this point. Now a matter that ultimately will take time and money away from the more important issues again distracts us. How sad!

By Will

March 23, 2007 8:45 AM | Link to this

The Bush Administration lost credibility a long time ago (remember: “Mission Accomplished?”)

Bush and his stinking pile of rubbish need to learn that the government belongs to all of the people, including the Democrats. Our modern-day King Lear needs to learn that he is not the sole “decider.”

By Hank

March 23, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

I wish more “conservatives” would follow the lead of a true conservative on this issue, Bob Barr. Most people who call themselves conservative, including Jim Wooten, are merely shills for Bush. They long ago abandoned the truth, in favor of the Republican Party.