Okay.
We've passed a spending bill with a deadline for troop withdrawls attached to it. Didn't that seem a little bit easy to you?
Especially you, Harry. Why do you think that it was even allowed to go to a vote, instead of getting shut down like all the other substantive bills the Senate Republicans have blocked?
I think we know. Because George W. Bush actually wants to veto it.
He could use the distraction, from the Attorneygate, GSA-gate and whatever other gate's erupt between now and whenever the bill hits his desk. He likes making grand, dramatic stands. He thinks that he can take the high, terrorist-fighting, troop-supporting road on this issue.
Furthermore, he believes that doing so will cost him nothing. He believes, with some historical validity, that Democrats will cave and compromise. That we will settle for some sort of meaningless, non-binding, bullshit little addendum to the spending bill that he can smirk at and ignore.
Let's prove him wrong.
He wants to play chicken. Great. Let's throw the steering wheel out the window while he watches.
Let's announce to the world that this is the only spending bill that he is going to see. And he can either sign it or not. Period.
More to the point, let's stick to it, no matter what.
What's the worst that could happen? Our troops have to come home in April? Great. Something tells me the National Guardsmen on their third deployment aren't going to be too pissed about that. The Republicans will accuse us of cowardice and treason? They already are doing that. The Iraqis will descend into civil war? Ditto. Democrats might suffer some political fallout for taking a firm stand for our principles? It's worth it.
This is our chance, the best one in a long, long, time to break Bush's willful defiance of the facts --- of Iraq, the Constitution, what the American people want, and the new balance of power in Washington.
He's not going to like it. He's going to bluster, and threaten, and cuss, and call us names. Fuck him.
He's been on a six year binge of other people's lives and money.
We can cut him off now.
Let's do it.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Why The US Attorneys Firing Scandal Matters
There are still some people who purport to be confused as to why the reason or method or people involved in the firing of the eight US Attorneys matters. And why Congress should issue subpoenas and force a Constitutional conflict to get to the bottom of it.
These people point out that nothing illegal happened, that US Attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President" and that he has the right and privilege to remove and replace them at any time and for any reason.
That I will grant. Yes, the President, and his appointed Attorney General do have that right, and should have that right.
But I would add that the U.S. public has the right to know about it.
The President, the District Attorney and the US Attorneys, let's not forget, are all public servants. All are charged with doing the people's business.
If the President, his staff and the appointees he puts into place believe that the proper method of executing this business is to reward political loyalty and punish impartiality and competence, I guess it's not exactly illegal.
But it certainly shouldn't be secret.
That is exactly the kind of information that voters should be made aware of, so that we can more accurately assess how we cast our votes next time we're asked to elect our next batch of public servants. And Congress has the right and duty to reveal that information to us.
After all, who else will? Not the press, who lacks the legal authority (and the spine) to wrest the needed documents and testimony from the participants. Not the judicial system. And certainly not the executive branch, through some sort of Special Investigator like Daniel Fitzgerald. They know they can't squeak through another one of those without getting really hurt.
Secondly, even if the nakedly partisan firings and hirings aren't illegal, they raise the possibility of other illegalities that may have been committed. Namely obstruction of justice and false charges by those US Attorneys who got the hint about what was expected of them if they wanted to stay employed. Pursuing this investigation to its logical end is the best way of unearthing those crimes.
These people point out that nothing illegal happened, that US Attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President" and that he has the right and privilege to remove and replace them at any time and for any reason.
That I will grant. Yes, the President, and his appointed Attorney General do have that right, and should have that right.
But I would add that the U.S. public has the right to know about it.
The President, the District Attorney and the US Attorneys, let's not forget, are all public servants. All are charged with doing the people's business.
If the President, his staff and the appointees he puts into place believe that the proper method of executing this business is to reward political loyalty and punish impartiality and competence, I guess it's not exactly illegal.
But it certainly shouldn't be secret.
That is exactly the kind of information that voters should be made aware of, so that we can more accurately assess how we cast our votes next time we're asked to elect our next batch of public servants. And Congress has the right and duty to reveal that information to us.
After all, who else will? Not the press, who lacks the legal authority (and the spine) to wrest the needed documents and testimony from the participants. Not the judicial system. And certainly not the executive branch, through some sort of Special Investigator like Daniel Fitzgerald. They know they can't squeak through another one of those without getting really hurt.
Secondly, even if the nakedly partisan firings and hirings aren't illegal, they raise the possibility of other illegalities that may have been committed. Namely obstruction of justice and false charges by those US Attorneys who got the hint about what was expected of them if they wanted to stay employed. Pursuing this investigation to its logical end is the best way of unearthing those crimes.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Nope, nothing wrong here.
"In his remarks Tuesday, Bush emphasized that he appoints federal prosecutors and it is natural to consider replacing them. While saying he disapproved of how the decisions were explained to Congress, he insisted "there is no indication that anybody did anything improper.""
That's one of the things that's so frustrating about this guy. You don't really ever really know if he's being extremely stupid, ass-headedly stubborn, or is simply lying.
With each subsequent testimony and document dump, it becomes increasingly clear that the Administration wanted to use United States Attorneys as guard dogs for Republican politicians and attack dogs against Democratic ones. And that the USAs that didn't want to go along with that got pushed out and replaced with ones that did.
I suppose, it is possible that Bush doesn't see anything 'improper' about that... he did, after all, 'win' the Presidency. And these are all supposedly 'his' guys, that serve 'at his pleasure.' Which, to him and his circle of cronies might very well mean that they are supposed to do his bidding, no matter how nakedly political and partisan that is.
The rest of us here in America find it very improper indeed. Also disgusting. And more than a little frightening.
We might accept that people come into a politically appointed office with certain leanings and tendencies. And even understand if they allow these leanings and tendencies to affect them in the fringes of their duties... like if there's a very close judgement call to be made, their judgement might be nudged toward the direction of their leanings and tendencies. People, after all, are not perfect.
But this is a case that goes far beyond that. This is the sort of stuff that conspiracy theories and banana republics are made of. This is an attempt to stymie prosecutors from following a clear trail of wrongdoing and to send them down false trails for political gains.
That's a road that no American, Republican or Democrat, should want our justice system to begin going down. Not only does it make a mockery of the hard work that our country has done to preserve our laudable level of professionalism, but it sets a nasty precedent that could be used with the change of administrations.
Of course, that's in the long term. And if there's one aspect of Bush's personality that isn't tough to read, it's that he doesn't really give a fuck about anything any further out time-wise than his next brush-clearing vacation.
That's one of the things that's so frustrating about this guy. You don't really ever really know if he's being extremely stupid, ass-headedly stubborn, or is simply lying.
With each subsequent testimony and document dump, it becomes increasingly clear that the Administration wanted to use United States Attorneys as guard dogs for Republican politicians and attack dogs against Democratic ones. And that the USAs that didn't want to go along with that got pushed out and replaced with ones that did.
I suppose, it is possible that Bush doesn't see anything 'improper' about that... he did, after all, 'win' the Presidency. And these are all supposedly 'his' guys, that serve 'at his pleasure.' Which, to him and his circle of cronies might very well mean that they are supposed to do his bidding, no matter how nakedly political and partisan that is.
The rest of us here in America find it very improper indeed. Also disgusting. And more than a little frightening.
We might accept that people come into a politically appointed office with certain leanings and tendencies. And even understand if they allow these leanings and tendencies to affect them in the fringes of their duties... like if there's a very close judgement call to be made, their judgement might be nudged toward the direction of their leanings and tendencies. People, after all, are not perfect.
But this is a case that goes far beyond that. This is the sort of stuff that conspiracy theories and banana republics are made of. This is an attempt to stymie prosecutors from following a clear trail of wrongdoing and to send them down false trails for political gains.
That's a road that no American, Republican or Democrat, should want our justice system to begin going down. Not only does it make a mockery of the hard work that our country has done to preserve our laudable level of professionalism, but it sets a nasty precedent that could be used with the change of administrations.
Of course, that's in the long term. And if there's one aspect of Bush's personality that isn't tough to read, it's that he doesn't really give a fuck about anything any further out time-wise than his next brush-clearing vacation.
Um, sorry, that's not going to do it
In this article, Bush makes his grandiose offer.
"Bush said his White House counsel, Fred Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview presidential counselor Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies — but only on the president's terms: in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript."
Bushie-Boy seems to be laboring under the delusion that his ideological and financial cronies still run things in Congress.
You'll note that he doesn't give any hint of reason why his staff can't testify under conditions in which it's more difficult to get away with lies, besides ""We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ..."
A more laughable statement can't be imagined coming from someone who only came as close to election as he did in 2000 on the strength of exactly that... a fishing expedition into Clinton's real estate dealings that uncovered the shocking fact that a man would tell fibs to avoid getting caught cheating on his wife.
Still you can hardly blame him for shielding his henchmen so vehemently.
Once Rove and his thugs are up on the stand, under oath and in front of the cameras there's no telling what kinds of skeletons, corpses and bound-and-gagged living captives might fall out of the administration's closet.
"Bush said his White House counsel, Fred Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview presidential counselor Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies — but only on the president's terms: in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript."
Bushie-Boy seems to be laboring under the delusion that his ideological and financial cronies still run things in Congress.
You'll note that he doesn't give any hint of reason why his staff can't testify under conditions in which it's more difficult to get away with lies, besides ""We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ..."
A more laughable statement can't be imagined coming from someone who only came as close to election as he did in 2000 on the strength of exactly that... a fishing expedition into Clinton's real estate dealings that uncovered the shocking fact that a man would tell fibs to avoid getting caught cheating on his wife.
Still you can hardly blame him for shielding his henchmen so vehemently.
Once Rove and his thugs are up on the stand, under oath and in front of the cameras there's no telling what kinds of skeletons, corpses and bound-and-gagged living captives might fall out of the administration's closet.
Monday, March 19, 2007
I'm Ready for the 2nd DOJ Corruption Helping, Thanks!
As the DA purge investigations continue, it's clear that the Administration was playing the the same crude and blatant politicization game with the Department of Justice as with every other person, place or thing they've had occasion to interact with.
One thing that you can say about that group of thugs and cavemen is that--- with the exception of the wily Rove, who layers a thin veneer of slickery, gotcha-proof, slime on top of his thuggery --- they aren't hard to read.
Their mandate was pretty clear to the DAs: Help get Republicans elected. Try to find (non-existent) voter fraud cases. Indict Democrats. And above all, stop investigating Republicans.
By firing the 8 DA's who, in the words of their own emails, weren't being "loyal Bushies," and accelerating or decelerating investigations at GOP command, they have more or less tipped off anyone of a suspicious mindset that the other 85 DA's were. Being loyal Bushies that is. And, on a side note, as of March 19th, 2007 I can't think of a more embarrassing label than that.
I'm rubbing my hands together waiting for the parties stung in the process --- like Dems who were unfairly singled out for investigations and intimidation, and prosecutors who had clear-cut corruption investigations against Repubs terminated --- to jump on the bandwagon and start telling their stories.
I'm betting that there is plenty of that particular kind of shit for us to push Republican noses into, while telling them that they are "Bad Americans! Bad!" before sending them out of the house, so they never get a chance to shit on the American carpet again.
One thing that you can say about that group of thugs and cavemen is that--- with the exception of the wily Rove, who layers a thin veneer of slickery, gotcha-proof, slime on top of his thuggery --- they aren't hard to read.
Their mandate was pretty clear to the DAs: Help get Republicans elected. Try to find (non-existent) voter fraud cases. Indict Democrats. And above all, stop investigating Republicans.
By firing the 8 DA's who, in the words of their own emails, weren't being "loyal Bushies," and accelerating or decelerating investigations at GOP command, they have more or less tipped off anyone of a suspicious mindset that the other 85 DA's were. Being loyal Bushies that is. And, on a side note, as of March 19th, 2007 I can't think of a more embarrassing label than that.
I'm rubbing my hands together waiting for the parties stung in the process --- like Dems who were unfairly singled out for investigations and intimidation, and prosecutors who had clear-cut corruption investigations against Repubs terminated --- to jump on the bandwagon and start telling their stories.
I'm betting that there is plenty of that particular kind of shit for us to push Republican noses into, while telling them that they are "Bad Americans! Bad!" before sending them out of the house, so they never get a chance to shit on the American carpet again.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Republican Priorities
According to this LA Times article, Carole Lam, the District Attorney for San Diego was fired because she preferred to pursue high level, white collar criminals (including Republican Congressman/Geriatric Partyboy, Randy "The Duke-stir" Cunningham) instead of immigration law violators.
How very Republican.
Thinking that it's less important to prosecute rich white people defrauding U.S. taxpayers than poor brown people trying to become them.
How very Republican.
Thinking that it's less important to prosecute rich white people defrauding U.S. taxpayers than poor brown people trying to become them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)