›

plaese to explain (Bush being asshurt related)

The_Hook_UpThe_Hook_Up 8,182 Posts
edited March 2007 in Strut Central
On the news this morning I heard Bush's little press conference saying Congress could interview his dudes ONLY IF it was private on off the record. WTF? These folks are public servants, so shouldnt every fucking word of testimony be made available to the public?...Bush's request seems so fucking off the wall to me...then he goes on to bitch and moan about it only being politcal...big deal if it is...but you and your cronies are public servants...Dolo, plaese to explain your boy's asshurtedness and his crazy fucking idea all of this can be private...
«1

  Comments

  • coffinjoecoffinjoe 1,743 Posts
    he thinks he can pull the execu-privilhizzle on the new congress
    should not work
    after 6 years of the roll over & play possum republicats in the house
    he now has some splaining to do

    by by gonzo gonzales
  • white_teawhite_tea 3,262 Posts
    It was the same deal he got for himself and Cheney before the 9-11 commission. Why would he want to be ON the record, when they would accept OFF the record? The only difference now is that the Dems are in the driver's seat. Of course it's political. Wisely, the Dems turned down Bush's offer and are going to dish out them subpoenas.
  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts
    On the news this morning I heard Bush's little press conference saying Congress could interview his dudes ONLY IF it was private on off the record. WTF? These folks are public servants, so shouldnt every fucking word of testimony be made available to the public?..

    It's not that crazy, after all, Karl Rove is no public servant, he is employed by the Prez to advise, and the argument is that by ordering Rove to testify under oath about candid conversations in the oval office breaches/threatens the way any President conducts business with his advisers.

    I am no fan of the way that this President conducts his agenda, but I don't think the Dems are going to find much more than is already a known fact, these firings were meant to send a message. Bush himself said it best, "That's DC for you". But what kills me is how he loves to throw that shit about 'politics' and 'partisan poison' around when he is the biggest offender in the room.

    But the fact that this is a result of the Patriot Act (which was overwhelmingly supported by both parties in a fit of overreactive idiocy) being used to further political agendas is what should be of outrage to people. They now do not have to go through a process of review, the Attorney General can just fire their lawyers and appoint new ones without oversight. The Dems need to take the blame for this right along with the Republicans. They all OK'd it when they rubber stamped the Patriot Act, from what I can see.
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    The only difference now is that the Dems are in the driver's seat.

    According to Gallup's monthly update on job approval of Congress -- in a March 11-14, 2007, national poll -- 28% of Americans approve of the job being done by Congress and 64% disapprove.
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    The only difference now is that the Dems are in the driver's seat.

    According to Gallup's monthly update on job approval of Congress -- in a March 11-14, 2007, national poll -- 28% of Americans approve of the job being done by Congress and 64% disapprove.

    i know. they've had three whole fucking months. i say recall them all. i mean look at how much the 107-109 got done b/w their stellar approval ratings.

    oh and you use Gallup now? Don't.
  • DjArcadianDjArcadian 3,630 Posts
    The only difference now is that the Dems are in the driver's seat.

    According to Gallup's monthly update on job approval of Congress -- in a March 11-14, 2007, national poll -- 28% of Americans approve of the job being done by Congress and 64% disapprove.

    That's actually up a bit from when Republican's where in power.



    Source: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26914&pg=1
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    splaining to do

    gonzo gonzales

  • 33thirdcom33thirdcom 2,049 Posts
    And lets not forget that Bush went form 90% approval rating and spent all of his "Political Capital" to now be at... what 30%? And he is losing his Republican base in the congress. I don't think Bush's second term can end fast enough for him.
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    Anybody been catch the Ghost of Tom Delay's recent junket?

    So sad. He looked like and fucking bubbling idiot on MTP. Only saved by the even more completely absurd Richard Perle.

    Then he gets sonned on the the fucking Today show by Vieira.



    (need to put her over in the obscure TV crushes BTW.)



    forgot to spell check

  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts
    Anybody been catch the GHost of Tom Delay's recent junket?

    So sad. He looked like and fucking bubbling idiot on MTP. ONly saved by how complettley absurd Richard OPerle.

    Then he gets sonned on the the fucking Today sho by Viera.



    (need to put her over in the obscure TV crushes BTW.)

    Yeah, he came off like a real Johnny-One-Note on that interview with Viera.
  • DB_CooperDB_Cooper Manhatin' 7,823 Posts
    Eh. Looking for accountablility from your government is like looking for honesty from your mechanic. You might get it, but most people don't know enough about the process of governing/engine maintenance to call effectively call bullshit when they're getting screwed. But in the end, it's the individual's fault for not educating themselves on the topic.

    That being said, could somebody please screw Karl Rove to the wall once and for all?
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    Yeah, he came off like a real Johnny-One-Note on that interview with Viera.

    Don't you kinda feel sorry for him at this point?
  • coffinjoecoffinjoe 1,743 Posts
    Yeah, he came off like a real Johnny-One-Note on that interview with Viera.

    Don't you kinda feel sorry for him at this point?

    no
  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts

    I am no fan of the way that this President conducts his agenda, but I don't think the Dems are going to find much more than is already a known fact, these firings were meant to send a message.

    I dont know about that. People are understimating the significance of these firings. It's one thing for Bush to come into office and replace every US Attorney (which i think Clinton did and maybe even Bush sr.). That is acceptable because, as President, you have every right to make federal appointments that correspond to your views on how the laws should be enforced. So, just like it is assumed that Presidents will appoint federal judges who are on the same political page as them, i see nothing wrong with applying that thinking to replacing Us attorneys.

    HOWEVER - here, there is an allegation that Rove set out to replace specific US Attorneys solely because they were not following the unethical political agenda that he concocted - the prosecution of democratic political figures. If this turns out to be true, this will be the biggest scandal Bush has faced...and that is saying a lot.
  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts

    I am no fan of the way that this President conducts his agenda, but I don't think the Dems are going to find much more than is already a known fact, these firings were meant to send a message.

    I dont know about that. People are understimating the significance of these firings. It's one thing for Bush to come into office and replace every US Attorney (which i think Clinton did and maybe even Bush sr.).

    Yes, reconfiguring the USAs when you begin your first term as president is more or less standard operating procedure. Clinton did do it, and, it's worth pointing out, Congressional Republicans bitched and moaned like you wouldn't believe, comparing it to the "March Massacre" and all this other bullshit, whereas when Bush the Lesser did it in 2001, barely anything was said.

    HOWEVER - here, there is an allegation that Rove set out to replace specific US Attorneys solely because they were not following the unethical political agenda that he concocted - the prosecution of democratic political figures. If this turns out to be true, this will be the biggest scandal Bush has faced...and that is saying a lot.

    And that's really the crux of it. Reconfiguring USAs as you begin your presidency is one thing...replacing specific attorneys for purely partisan reasons six years into your presidency...well, that's a bunch of bullshit.

    BTW, I love W's offer to have Rove and Miers lie to Congress in private with no recording and no transcription. Wow, how helpful!
  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts

    I am no fan of the way that this President conducts his agenda, but I don't think the Dems are going to find much more than is already a known fact, these firings were meant to send a message.

    I dont know about that. People are understimating the significance of these firings. It's one thing for Bush to come into office and replace every US Attorney (which i think Clinton did and maybe even Bush sr.).

    Yes, reconfiguring the USAs when you begin your first term as president is more or less standard operating procedure. Clinton did do it, and, it's worth pointing out, Congressional Republicans bitched and moaned like you wouldn't believe, comparing it to the "March Massacre" and all this other bullshit, whereas when Bush the Lesser did it in 2001, barely anything was said.

    HOWEVER - here, there is an allegation that Rove set out to replace specific US Attorneys solely because they were not following the unethical political agenda that he concocted - the prosecution of democratic political figures. If this turns out to be true, this will be the biggest scandal Bush has faced...and that is saying a lot.

    And that's really the crux of it. Reconfiguring USAs as you begin your presidency is one thing...replacing specific attorneys for purely partisan reasons six years into your presidency...well, that's a bunch of bullshit.

    BTW, I love W's offer to have Rove and Miers lie to Congress in private with no recording and no transcription. Wow, how helpful!

    But the purely partisan angle is kind of a tough sell as far as proving it. Weren't the Attorneys all Republicans? And even under oath do you think this will really reveal much more than has already been admitted?

    I am sorry, but I just don't see how this could eclipse leading us into Iraq on trumped up 'evidence' as far as scandal goes, it is far too complex and vague to find any smoking gun, IMO. These guys will say anything to protect themselves and their people, anywhere, anytime, and under any oath. As much as I would enjoy it, I just don't see this succeeding. If it went to court battle, I am betting Bush would prevail.
  • white_teawhite_tea 3,262 Posts
    The only difference now is that the Dems are in the driver's seat.

    According to Gallup's monthly update on job approval of Congress -- in a March 11-14, 2007, national poll -- 28% of Americans approve of the job being done by Congress and 64% disapprove.

    Well shit -- if asked about Congress's recent debate on whether to debate a nonbinding resolution on the war in Iraq, count me among the 28 percent.
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    I love when professional politicians try to snub their noses and accuse each other of doing things motivated by politics.
  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    I think all of the attorneys fired were first appointed by Bush. Some of them seem to have been fired because Republican politicians were mad at them (the one from Arkansas I believe said two Congress members called him up about going after Democratic politicians in his state, the one from San Diego didn't go after illegal immigrants or something as much as some Repbulicans wanted), one because Karl Rove wanted a crony to get the job for prestige to move up later in life. I don't know about the rest.

    The USA Patriot Act allowed all the state attorneys to be appointed and not be confirmed by Congress. Congress is now trying to get rid of that.

    Congress is threatening to force members of the White House to testify about what happened because after Attn. Gen. Gonzalez first testified a whole bunch of incriminating e-mails were released which contradicted what he said. There's a part of the Constitution that says the President can seek outside help as advisers and the Supreme Court has usually interpreted that to mean that the Executive Branch officials who are not cabinet members are protected from testifying to Congress as part of executive privilege. That means Rove probably won't be forced into testifying, but he might under other circumstances. Cabinet officials, however, who are confirmed by Congress, are not protected so Gonzalez will probably have to go back up to Capitol Hill and give some kind of explanation.

    I'm not sure what will come of it in the end. State Attnys and appointed judges have always been part of patronage programs by both political parties to further their supporters and agendas.
  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts
    I think all of the attorneys fired were first appointed by Bush. Some of them seem to have been fired because Republican politicians were mad at them (the one from Arkansas I believe said two Congress members called him up about going after Democratic politicians in his state, the one from San Diego didn't go after illegal immigrants or something as much as some Repbulicans wanted), one because Karl Rove wanted a crony to get the job for prestige to move up later in life. I don't know about the rest.

    The USA Patriot Act allowed all the state attorneys to be appointed and not be confirmed by Congress. Congress is now trying to get rid of that.

    Congress is threatening to force members of the White House to testify about what happened because after Attn. Gen. Gonzalez first testified a whole bunch of incriminating e-mails were released which contradicted what he said. There's a part of the Constitution that says the President can seek outside help as advisers and the Supreme Court has usually interpreted that to mean that the Executive Branch officials who are not cabinet members are protected from testifying to Congress as part of executive privilege. That means Rove probably won't be forced into testifying, but he might under other circumstances. Cabinet officials, however, who are confirmed by Congress, are not protected so Gonzalez will probably have to go back up to Capitol Hill and give some kind of explanation.

    I'm not sure what will come of it in the end. State Attnys and appointed judges have always been part of patronage programs by both political parties to further their supporters and agendas.

    At best is seems like Congress may yet get the head of Gonzalez, but that would be about it. I guess whether or not it's all a worthwhile fight is still a matter of some debate.
  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts
    (the one from Arkansas I believe said two Congress members called him up about going after Democratic politicians in his state, the one from San Diego didn't go after illegal immigrants or something as much as some Repbulicans wanted)

    There's speculation that the Arkansas USA was booted because Rove wanted somebody in there who would be ready, willing, and able to dig up dirt and pursue anything and everything regarding Hillary Clinton in the runup to the 2008 election. Given Rove's track record of using, "Look over there--a scandal!" as an electoral ploy, particularly pushing baseless investigations against opponents right before ballots are cast, I don't dismiss that speculation as completely baseless.
  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts
    (the one from Arkansas I believe said two Congress members called him up about going after Democratic politicians in his state, the one from San Diego didn't go after illegal immigrants or something as much as some Repbulicans wanted)

    There's speculation that the Arkansas USA was booted because Rove wanted somebody in there who would be ready, willing, and able to dig up dirt and pursue anything and everything regarding Hillary Clinton in the runup to the 2008 election. Given Rove's track record of using, "Look over there--a scandal!" as an electoral ploy, particularly pushing baseless investigations against opponents right before ballots are cast, I don't dismiss that speculation as completely baseless.

    No, but very hard to prove.
  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts
    (the one from Arkansas I believe said two Congress members called him up about going after Democratic politicians in his state, the one from San Diego didn't go after illegal immigrants or something as much as some Repbulicans wanted)

    There's speculation that the Arkansas USA was booted because Rove wanted somebody in there who would be ready, willing, and able to dig up dirt and pursue anything and everything regarding Hillary Clinton in the runup to the 2008 election. Given Rove's track record of using, "Look over there--a scandal!" as an electoral ploy, particularly pushing baseless investigations against opponents right before ballots are cast, I don't dismiss that speculation as completely baseless.

    No, but very hard to prove.

    Agreed.
  • BigSpliffBigSpliff 3,266 Posts
    splaining to do

    gonzo gonzales


  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    (the one from Arkansas I believe said two Congress members called him up about going after Democratic politicians in his state, the one from San Diego didn't go after illegal immigrants or something as much as some Repbulicans wanted)

    There's speculation that the Arkansas USA was booted because Rove wanted somebody in there who would be ready, willing, and able to dig up dirt and pursue anything and everything regarding Hillary Clinton in the runup to the 2008 election. Given Rove's track record of using, "Look over there--a scandal!" as an electoral ploy, particularly pushing baseless investigations against opponents right before ballots are cast, I don't dismiss that speculation as completely baseless.

    No, but very hard to prove.

    Agreed.


    when did you guys start needing proof?
  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts
    (the one from Arkansas I believe said two Congress members called him up about going after Democratic politicians in his state, the one from San Diego didn't go after illegal immigrants or something as much as some Repbulicans wanted)

    There's speculation that the Arkansas USA was booted because Rove wanted somebody in there who would be ready, willing, and able to dig up dirt and pursue anything and everything regarding Hillary Clinton in the runup to the 2008 election. Given Rove's track record of using, "Look over there--a scandal!" as an electoral ploy, particularly pushing baseless investigations against opponents right before ballots are cast, I don't dismiss that speculation as completely baseless.

    No, but very hard to prove.

    Agreed.


    when did you guys start needing proof?

    I'm sorry, did you say something?
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    (the one from Arkansas I believe said two Congress members called him up about going after Democratic politicians in his state, the one from San Diego didn't go after illegal immigrants or something as much as some Repbulicans wanted)

    There's speculation that the Arkansas USA was booted because Rove wanted somebody in there who would be ready, willing, and able to dig up dirt and pursue anything and everything regarding Hillary Clinton in the runup to the 2008 election. Given Rove's track record of using, "Look over there--a scandal!" as an electoral ploy, particularly pushing baseless investigations against opponents right before ballots are cast, I don't dismiss that speculation as completely baseless.

    No, but very hard to prove.

    Agreed.


    when did you guys start needing proof?

    ***you are ignoring this user***
  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts
    (the one from Arkansas I believe said two Congress members called him up about going after Democratic politicians in his state, the one from San Diego didn't go after illegal immigrants or something as much as some Repbulicans wanted)

    There's speculation that the Arkansas USA was booted because Rove wanted somebody in there who would be ready, willing, and able to dig up dirt and pursue anything and everything regarding Hillary Clinton in the runup to the 2008 election. Given Rove's track record of using, "Look over there--a scandal!" as an electoral ploy, particularly pushing baseless investigations against opponents right before ballots are cast, I don't dismiss that speculation as completely baseless.

    No, but very hard to prove.

    Agreed.


    when did you guys start needing proof?

    ***you are ignoring this user***

    ***you are ignoring this user***
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    (the one from Arkansas I believe said two Congress members called him up about going after Democratic politicians in his state, the one from San Diego didn't go after illegal immigrants or something as much as some Repbulicans wanted)

    There's speculation that the Arkansas USA was booted because Rove wanted somebody in there who would be ready, willing, and able to dig up dirt and pursue anything and everything regarding Hillary Clinton in the runup to the 2008 election. Given Rove's track record of using, "Look over there--a scandal!" as an electoral ploy, particularly pushing baseless investigations against opponents right before ballots are cast, I don't dismiss that speculation as completely baseless.

    No, but very hard to prove.

    Agreed.


    when did you guys start needing proof?

    ***you are ignoring this user***

    ***you are ignoring this user***

    what?
  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts
    (the one from Arkansas I believe said two Congress members called him up about going after Democratic politicians in his state, the one from San Diego didn't go after illegal immigrants or something as much as some Repbulicans wanted)

    There's speculation that the Arkansas USA was booted because Rove wanted somebody in there who would be ready, willing, and able to dig up dirt and pursue anything and everything regarding Hillary Clinton in the runup to the 2008 election. Given Rove's track record of using, "Look over there--a scandal!" as an electoral ploy, particularly pushing baseless investigations against opponents right before ballots are cast, I don't dismiss that speculation as completely baseless.

    No, but very hard to prove.

    Agreed.


    when did you guys start needing proof?

    ***you are ignoring this user***

    ***you are ignoring this user***

    what?

    huh?
Sign In or Register to comment.