Thousands of White House E-mails Deleted 799
kidcharles writes "The Washington Post reports that in the midst of an investigation by the U.S. Congress into the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by the Department of Justice, numerous White House e-mails have been lost. Among them are communications from presidential adviser Karl Rove. Parallels are being drawn with the infamous '18 minutes' missing from the Nixon Watergate tapes. Also at issue is the use of Republican National Committee e-mail domains (such as gwb43.com and georgewbush.com) rather than the official White House domain. This is a violation of the Presidential Records Act."
Does this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does this... (Score:5, Interesting)
If they do manage to hide those emails, that'll be a first for The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight.
Their consistent MO has been to spout brazen nonsense, then rely on the sheer effrontery to keep the truth hidden until it is covered in a pile of bullshit so deep it will never be brought to light. And the damned thing is that it worked -- a least for a while. Seriously, who has time to think about the truth behind the Iraq WMD lie? It's buried in a strata of crap so deep you'd need a team of archaeologists to find it.
I think the reason this works is that regular people, the people who vote, have no way to know directly whether something is true or not. That's the power vacuum in which money is supreme. Then these guys blew it by telling two big lies that the public could see for itself were lies: that the Iraq war is succeeding and that they cared what happened to the victims of Katrina. Katrina was the watershed event. Before you could get away with lying if you were glib enough. Afterward it was much more dangerious.
But they're still doing it.
Take the US attorney firing. I'm not a lawyer, but even I know enough never to tell an easily refuted lie when you can get by with a uselessly vague truth. I'd have been saying things like "It was time for new blood." or "David Iglesias did a fine job, but a shakeup will keep everybody on their toes, and Larry Gomez deserves his chance to show us what he can do."
Instead they concocted a pile of utter horseshit that is easy to disprove and which by the way impugns the reputation and service of a group of people who happen to be -- wait for it -- high power lawyers. Don't they even watch TV? The way prosecutors get you is they let you talk and talk until you've buried yourself in your own crap and you'll do anything they ask if they'll just please, please throw you a rope? It's a wonder these guys can make it from the shower to the breakfast table in the morning without being indicted.
It's never been a surprise these guys are liars. I knew they were liars before they even came in -- and I don't say that lightly. I don't think people are evil because they disagree with me. I don't see eye to eye with Bob Dole, but he would have been a strong and honorable president. But this guy was obviously a pathetic liar from the start. They didn't exactly try to hide the fact they ran a whisper campaign against John McCain in South Carolina. Anybody with even a whisp of decency would had the person responsible fired in disgrace. It's a disgrace to the Republican party they didn't kick W out right then and there.
It goes to show you there are worse things than losing.
Printed, shredded then burnt! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: the Iraq WMD lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, if you go back to early 2003 and look at the propaganda leading up to the invasion of Iraq, you'll see that the Bush gang pretty much gave up on the WMD argument during the last month or so. The reason was that it had been so thoroughly debunked by so many people that they realized they needed a new pretext. They had pretty much run through all that were even remotely credible, so they pulled out their trump card: They had to stage a pre-emptive attack to prevent whatever Saddam's government might do in the future.
This pretty much stopped the attempts to debunk their arguments, because this one can't be debunked. Unless you are blind, deaf and quadraplegic, you could be planning an attack on anyone, no matter who you are or how peaceful you've been in the past. It's a challenge-proof excuse for attacking anyone anywhere anytime.
This is still remembered by a fair number of people in the world. It became clear that the people running the US government weren't joking when they used the phrase "sole remaining super-power". They did consider themselves in charge of the world, and they were prepared to attack anyone who challenged them. Or even people who didn't challenge them. They don't need evidence; all they need is to think that you might attack them.
A lot of us still remember this. And we remember that roughly half of the Americans who bothered to vote in 2004 voted to give these people four more years.
(The WMD concept does keep rearing its ugly head, of course. This is partly because of the discovery that, despite several more years of debunking, around half the voting American population still believes it. But it's also routinely used by American comedians, so it's not so good as a theme song any more. The real future is in worrying about what you and I might do in the future if we're not stopped now.)
Re:Does this... (Score:4, Informative)
There is a major difference. It goes to intent.
It is one thing to fire them all at the beginning of one's term, indiscrimnately, which many presidents have done, to "start fresh" (although prior to the Patriot Act all such appointments had to go be approved by the Senate and as such required at least pretense of competence).
It is quite another to fire them only when they start conducting "inconvenient" investigations. Say Nixon's attempt at firing the prosecutor who decided to look too closely at Watergate. Or if Clinton had somehow tried to fire Kenneth Starr.
Re:Does this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does this... (Score:4, Insightful)
And all Presidents dump the prosecutors en masse when they get elected. Very few dump a bunch in the middle of their own presidency. It's not illegal to do it, but it's strange, it's indicative of something shady going on, and when they LIE about why they did it, well, that makes it look a bit shadier, doesn't it.
Re:Does this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does this... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always a mistake to think you can run government like a business. It's a double mistake to vote for a politician who claims they can; they're either lying (most politicians) or stupid (take your pick).
Three out of ten businesses go bankrupt within the first year. When a government goes bankrupt it destroys an entire country. Immediately you see there is a difference; you can't run a government like a business and simply hope you're not in that bottom 30%. Governments need to be far more risk adverse.
Governments work with much larger time frames. They need to think in terms of decades. Businesses barely think in terms of years. I think one of the problems with the current administration is that they do only think in terms of years. That works fine in business where you can always bail before the stock tanks - the new investors take the loss instead of you - but it's disastrous for a government.
The US government handles significantly more money than any single US business. This means there are more opportunities for corruption so there is a corresponding stronger need for oversight and accountability. This is one of the reasons why government works so slowly; the public service structure has been designed to obstruct and detect and resolve corruption.
Governments have significantly more power than businesses. Businesses only have to follow the law; governments can create them. Governments can declare war. Government can imprison people. Government enforces the judiciary. These responsibilities make government both more powerful but also more difficult to manage. A businessman is not trained for that sort of responsibility.
And I can't end without taking an easy swipe at the current administration. GWB is a terrible businessman and perhaps the worst choice for "CEO of the USA". He managed to financially cripple three oil companies before finally making money on the Texas Rangers; and IMO his profit from the Texas Rangers had nothing to do with his skills as a businessman. Despite having a huge family wealth and an MBA from Harvard, he was worse than mediocre. His track record has spoken for itself. I'm not surprised you wanted the government to be run like a business - it's a common desire amongst free market advocates - but I'm very surprised you chose GWB as the champion for your ideology.
Re:Does this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not thousands of e-mails -- OVER FIVE MILLION (Score:5, Informative)
Oh come now (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh come now (Score:5, Informative)
Quoting Leahy [yahoo.com]:
"You can't erase e-mails, not today. They've gone through too many servers," said Leahy, D-Vt. "Those e-mails are there, they just don't want to produce them. We'll subpoena them if necessary."
The emails may have been "deleted" but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh come now (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
More like...
In US Attorneys Office, email deletes YOU
Miraculously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Miraculously.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Miraculously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Miraculously.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Miraculously.. (Score:5, Funny)
Hell no, and I'll tell you why: He just doesn' have the patience (or stupidity, take your pick) for the job. As a "go-to" guy who operates behind the scenes and gets shit done, he's probably the best in the world.
But, doing press conferences, diplomatic trips, all the usual banal crap the Prez has to do on a daily basis, I think would either drive him towards his final heart attack or a murder spree in the West Wing.
So yeah,bring on President Dick. He'll stab an intern through the heart with a fork before his first week is done.
Re:Miraculously.. (Score:4, Funny)
So, you're thinking that would stop him, or something? I mean he shot a lawyer in the face, and the lawyer apologized. How awesome is that?
President Cheney? Never happen. (Score:4, Insightful)
All the Dems would have to do is watch (and laugh).
Re:Miraculously.. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a question of impeachment in order to replace this guy.
Impeachment should be used to combat reckless use of power, it ensures The People still control its government and not the other way around.
Anytime someone even suggests the word 'impeachment', things quickly descend into a partisan hate orgy.
I understand why people are sensitive about the issue, but really, accountability in a democratic government shouldn't be a political football, it is supposed to be what defines DEMOCRACY as a system.
Re:Miraculously.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Miraculously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, impeaching Bush does not automatically mean he is removed from office. I remind you that Clinton was impeached for similar reasons (perjury) and remained in office.
At this point I don't even think it matters whether or not the White House is being honest with the investigation committee. If they are being honest, then they are incredibly inept and don't deserve to run this country. If they aren't being honest they are a bunch of filthly liars who don't deserve to run this country. Same thing with all the intelligence goofs with the Iraq invasion. It doesn't matter much if they were lying about the intelligence or intentionally misleading the Senate. Either way, they are either dishonest or inept.
Choosing not to impeach and seek justice based on the "next guy" is incredibly silly and un-American. Even if the decision is made to remove Bush from office, let Cheney be the President and let him be under the same scrutiny I say. This administration should not get away with being inept or dishonest, and they certainly shouldn't get away with being inept at being dishonest.
Re:Miraculously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Criminal trials routinely have more than one defendant. An impeachment takes the form of a criminal trial so there should be no problem impeaching both the President and Vice-President simultaneously.
I don't see that happening over the emails though. The Democrats are not going to impeach anyone unless there is a high probability that they can convict. At the moment it is doubtful that there would be more than five Republican Senators that have even serously thought about backing impeachment.
Gonzalez is another matter entirely. Unless he resigns soon he will be impeached. In his case the arithmetic is very different. A trial in the Senate would inevitably turn into a proxy for the impeachment of Bush. If the outcome of that trial was a 60:40 vote to convict the press would spend the next 18 months asking if the Democrats had found the seven votes they need to convict Bush. That is such a downside for the administration it cannot be allowed to happen. Gonzalez will go the minute Democrats start impeachment procedings.
The only situation in which Bush is likely to be impeached is if he launches an attack against Iran. That is more likely than not to end up an even greater fiasco than Iraq. Iran has more military hardware in the region than the US can call on. They have highly effective Chinese anti-ship missiles.
If the vulcans persuade Bush that bombing Iran would be a cakewalk it is sure to be another poorly planned fiasco premised on the idea that the enemy is a bunch of ingorant cowards who will roll at the first sign of a fight - yeah just like they did in the Iran-Iraq war when they lost a million lives.
If Bush bombs and the Iranians respond by sinking the Nimitz, closing the straits of Hormuz and launching a ground attack against Basra an impeachment becomes a very real likelihood. Short of that level of stupidity it is not likely to happen.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In other words, this is Republican from beginning to end.
Whatever happened to "fiscally responsible" Republicans? Did they ever really exist?
That's pretty much where I was going... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonononono (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That's pretty much where I was going... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to be clear on this, let's make sure we're all on the same page. Clinton was asked by a grand jury about consensual activities between two adults who are considered legally capable of making their own decisions.
The question had no bearing whatsoever on his ability to do his job as president. In fact, the vast majority of people who complain about Clinton are opposed to him not because of his activities, but because they think he's a bad person. And not just because he lied, but because of his sexual proclivities!
The simple fact is that he never should have been asked the question, because it had no bearing on anything. And because it was in front of a grand jury, he was denied his fifth amendment rights. So he did what any responsible man would do - he lied. Personally, I would simply refuse to answer, even though you're not permitted to do that, but either way you would be in trouble. I don't see that it makes much of a difference either way.
Finally, we expect our politicians to lie. It's why we hire them. Studies have shown that we elect presidents on the basis of whether we like their face and voice or not, not based on the issues, or party affiliations (although many if not most people do vote blindly along party lines - but that simply makes them predictable.)
Am I defending Clinton's lie? You bet. Do I think lying is wrong? Sure. But I think it's less wrong than asking him the question in the first place, and confronted with his situation, I don't think it was an unreasonable decision. The fact that we all expect politicians to lie from both sides of their mouth, but then we are willing to take someone to task for lying about a question of a personal nature that should never have been asked, is just the typical paradoxical bullshit that most people are willing to handwave away. I would rather wave my hands in other directions.
The ultimate wrong done here, of course, is the fact that there is any situation in which you can be denied your constitutional rights. But then, we are regularly denied them, so I guess people are simply used to that, too.
He had a good reason to lie (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally he has
Re:He had a good reason to lie (Score:4, Insightful)
For all you know, they are interested in being together but not in having sex with one another, and they have an agreement saying that Bubba can get his dick wet anywhere and in anyone he wants.
How dare you make personal decisions about who is allowed to fuck who in a relationship in which you are not involved?
Hillary is obviously fine with it, at least to the degree that she accepts it as a necessary evil, otherwise there would have been a divorce by now. If she is not divorcing him because she doesn't care, then who are you to interfere? If she is not divorcing him for political reasons, then obviously the marriage isn't about love anyway, and so again, who the fuck are you?
Again, the simple fact is that he was asked in front of a grand jury in which case you do not enjoy the protection of the fifth amendment (or rather, it explicitly denies you protection in the case of being before a grand jury) about a question which was not material to the case. He was asked a question about a consensual activity which was no one's business but those who were actually involved, as if it were somehow relevant about allegations of nonconsensual acts. Which it was not.
Re:That's pretty much where I was going... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Sexually irresponsible"? What the hell does that mean? Asking about a consensual sexual act to try to establish some pattern for a supposedly nonconsensual sexual act is utterly unfounded. It's unrelated.
I'm saying that it's justified by the fact that he was being questioned by a grand jury, which denies you your constitutional right to protection from self-incrimination. Not that our constitution ever meant that much, being just a piece of paper, but there seem to be exceptions to every "right" that the constitution supposedly guarantees us.
He was denied his fifth amendment rights. You don't think that is wrong?
Here's a concept for you: You cannot be held to an oath made under duress of force. The force in question is denial of constitutional rights.
modding the above troll only proves stoogedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. It's fine if you want to ignore both history and what is going on around you, that's your prerogative and one engaged in frequently by the majority of the population of the USA. But the simple fact is that our current president has a worse record in every way than any former president! The deficit has been swelled more than ever before, and the pretext under which we went to war was a lie. (They later tried to foist the blame for the belief that Saddam was si
Re:Dems and impeachment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Miraculously.. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la
Firing US Attorneys in term is another matter. That has happened only a few times over the last century, and always due to malfeasance or criminal activity on the part of the US Attorney in question. The Hatch Act (the subject of this discussion) expressly forbids political activity or partisan interference in both the Judiciary and the Justice Department (it also demands full records keeping for all Federal activities).
It would appear our President and his advisers have committed felonies.
Re:Miraculously.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Miraculously.. (Score:4, Informative)
Bush fired most/all US Attorneys at the beginning of his first term, AND fired again several of them midway through his second term as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Before Bush, when a U.S. Attorney was fired, the President would appoint another to take their place. However this had to be approved by the Senate. Checks and balances. However, a provision in the Patriot Act that was revised allows the Attorney General to appoin
N.S.A. Restores BushCo Syndicate Mail: +1, Fun (Score:5, Funny)
This one's a no-brainer.
The NSA has been monitoring and logging all US domestic phone and email traffic for a few years now, thanks to Bush and Cheney.
So subpoena the "lost" WH emails from the NSA. Put the domestic spying operation to some practical use.
If they don't have the emails, they aren't doing their job, and it will be time to get rid of the NSA.
Annoyed Canuck | 04.12.07 - 3:57 pm | #
I hope this helps the Federal criminal prosecution of the world's largest crime syndicate [whitehouse.org].
Patriotically as always,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.
Typical outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
And, as usual, no one will be held accountable for it. If it looks like someone may, they will claim "National Security" and halt all proceedings. It would seem that "Slick Willy" has some competition.
Re:Typical outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Typical outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
OMG. Your head must be so far in the sand you hear Mandarin.
"many democrats were privy to the very same information the president was and they chose to support the war. Did they lie? The UN believed Saddam had had weapons of mass destruction. Did they lie? Europe also believed Saddam had those weapons. Did they lie?"
No, there mistake was thinking Bush had some inegrity and believed him.
~
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
- George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002
There was no evidence of this, at all.
~
The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.
- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002
No, many nations wanted evidence, they wanted to know where Bush was getting his information because they couldn't confirm what he was saying.
~
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003
WHen you are the top dog, what your spokeman says counts as coming from you.
~
What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.
- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003
UN inspectors never said such a thing.
~
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003
Again, false.
Intelligence "analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.
- CIA Director George Tenet, speech, Feb. 5, 2004
~
I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein - because he had a weapons program.
- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003
Not a lie, but an interesting statement from a man in 2002 said that the definatly had them.
~
Motivation:
From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. Going after Saddam was topic "A" ten days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
- former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, CBS' 60 Minutes, Jan. 11, 2004
~
My resientment and disgust towards our president is not party based, it is based soley on the action of this administration.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress was not given all of the intelligence available. There was much intelligence at the time to the contrary. Yet what was presented to the American public was an unequivocal case that Iraq was an immediate threat to our national sec
Re:Typical outcome (Score:5, Informative)
Because firing them all when you take office is standard practice. Firing some of them in the middle of your term for political reasons (eg, they are in the process of investigating certain Republicans), is NOT standard practice and actually falls under a little something called "obstruction of justice".
Pardon me, but your hypocrisy is showing.
Your ignorance is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are no personal consequences in the law for violating the Presidential Records Act, but you can get a big personal fine or go to jail for violating the Hatch Act.
If there is any question of whether an
Re:Typical outcome (Score:4, Insightful)
Blame the spamfilter (Score:5, Insightful)
Deleted? What about the redundancy? What about the (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Deleted? What about the redundancy? What about (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Which is why (Score:4, Interesting)
so... (Score:5, Funny)
Nixon (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nixon had NOTHING on the current thugs in the White House administration.
If it gets any worse we're going to have to dig up Nixon and apologize. He's starting to look almost saintly by comparison.
Bush administration totally corrupted (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush needs to hang Rove out to dry -- let a special prosecutor send that guy to a Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, can Gonzalez and seal the door to Cheney's office.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it interesting that you aren't considering that Bush is part of the problem. After all, he could have gotten rid of Rove or Gonzalez at a word, but didn't. So either he doesn't know what the people he's appointed are doing, or he knows about it and approves. Either way he isn't fit to be president.
This isn't the Reps I used to know (Score:3, Interesting)
How does this match a government that limits and restricts every kind of freedom the US used to have? How does this sync with more and more laws, more and more regulations
Re:Bush administration totally corrupted (Score:5, Informative)
That is factually wrong. Laws were broken. A CIA agent was outed without proper clearance. The barrier between those who were allowed to know vs. the general public was crossed.
Libby has been convicted of saying different things at different times about what he remembers about when he recalls talking to people about something that wasn't a problem and didn't cause any problems, except for himself.
This is factually wrong. Libby was convicted of perjury. Perjury is purposefully lying under oath, in this case to a grand jury. Moreover, the "something that wasn't a problem" as you call it clearly WAS a problem, namely a CIA agent who had been working on counter-terrorism in the area of weapons of mass destruction was outed. Problems WERE caused-- not only the CIA agent was outed, but her entire network, including fake companies and other contacts were outed.
She wasn't covert
Factually wrong. Read her testimony [washingtonpost.com]. And I quote,
the White House didn't leak her name
Again, wrong. Although Armitage leaked her name first, her name was ALSO independently leaked by Rove and others to members of the media.
Pretty straightforward to me.
her husband's silly take on things has been roundly and thoroughly debunked, and he's been pointed out as lying about (or just being oily about) the whole thing from the beginning
not sure which "silly take on things" you're referring to, but he was 100% correct about yellowcake in Niger and that he had been targeted by Rove and others in the White House has been confirmed in Dick Cheney's own handwriting.
Perhaps you're thinking of the White House Press Secretary Scott McClellen's account that no one in the White House had leaked, which HAS been thoroughly debunked. Or maybe you're thinking of Bush's claim to that effect, and that anyone who had leaked would "no longer work" at the White House. Another lie.
Where's the corruption in this?
Where to begin... it could be in the White House's complete lack of support in finding the truth, lying to cover it up, lying about what the consequences would be if a traitor were found, lying to get us into a war, and then attacking an individual who was trying to get the truth out to the public. Somewhere in there.
the special prosecutor, who knew the whole story almost immediately, worked this in an entirely political manner?
Sorry, the special prosecutor had a theory (which turned out to be correct) about who the leaker was, but went to additional sources to confirm that this was in fact the leaker, the first leaker, and the ONLY leaker (which he was not). This requires interviewing more witnesses. Dick Cheney's 2nd man decided to lie under these circumstances, and to NOT bust him for this would endanger the legal process just as much as say, hiring a yes-man as the Attorney General or firing DAs for political reasons.
Pull your head out of your ass, stop listening to Rush/Hannity for your news, and quit spreading such bald-face lies.
Re:Bush administration totally corrupted (Score:4, Insightful)
The flaw in your "reasoning" is patent:
1. If Plame were covert, Armitage would not have known
2. Artmitage knew
3. Therefore, Plame was not covert.
#1 is simply and absurdly false. If Armitage or any other person with a "secret" clearance accidentally learned something he should not have known, the secret is still a secret both in fact and in law.
More important: the uncontested evidence of the Libby trial is that the Vice-President Cheney ordered that her identify be spread about. That is how several reporters found out (but had patriotism to keep their mouths shut); and that is how Armitage found out (he read a memo with her ID labeled "S" for Secret; his knowledge was not "casual" as you stated.
Keep in mind that outing a spy in time of war is treason. Your focussing on Armitage and ignoring the treason is just denial. If you refuse to ignore that evidence, how do expect credibility?
As for GW: If you find some people "obnoxious" that's as may be, but the facts behind GW are no longer in doubt - only in denial - just as Plame's covert status.
Tradition (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_tapes [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Enro
Wiretapping? (Score:5, Funny)
Presidential Records Act? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given these facts, you're surprised he thinks the Presidential Records Act doesn't apply to him? You're joking right? You think these people want to be held accountable 5-10 years from now? Put it in the memory hole, so we can have one of those swell state funerals like they had for Ronald Reagan, put on the rose-colored glasses and talk about how greatness of this catastrophy of a President. America wins the war on intelligence!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
8. ???
9. Profit!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Presidential Records Act? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Presidential Records Act? (Score:4, Informative)
The war on terror began with Ronald Reagan. Want to know the best part? It was Ronald Reagan that normalized relations with Iraq, took them off the list of state sponsored terror, and sold them the "weapons of mass destruction" and other munitions. The irony? People in the current administration did it.
Let's look at an abbreviated list shall we?
Want further irony? It was also Ronald Reagan that trained and funded bin Laden.
Now let's do a thought experiment - how would the majority of American's feel about Ronald Reagan and these people that worked both for him and the current administration if they knew a little bit more about them? The reason why most people think that Reagan was a patriot and a great American is because they know very little about what the Reagan administration was responsible for and the concrete ways it is impacting us today.
Another thing: can you identify what exactly is petty in my argument? The fact that I pointed out that the state sponsored funeral for Ronald Reagan was an elaborate stage show for the current administration? I don't even like Reagan and what he stood for, but I think it was a tragedy that he was used as a set piece for a political play for sentiment and support by the Bush administration.
Executive privilege (Score:5, Insightful)
On the plus side, I bet it will be tough to claim executive privilege on those e-mails.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hence their disappearance.
Disconnect between WH statements and law (Score:5, Informative)
Yesterday he said this:
Here are the specifics of what is required by the Hatch Act [osc.gov]. It is clear that
A) Politicization (partisan activities) within certain Federal Agencies, such as the CIA or the Justice Department, is a felony.
B) All records relating to government business MUST be retained for investigative purposes, and later historical preservation. To destroy these documents is a felony.
This law is clear, has been on the books since the 1930s, and has passed several Supreme Court affirmations. There's no wiggle room here. This is a clear violation of the law. And note A) in relation to the Federal US Attorney firings. To fire is legal; to fire with even just partisan intent -- never mind apparent Obstruction of Justice -- is a clear felony.
We're walking right into another constitutional crisis. Comparisons to Nixon's firing of Archibold Cox (The Saturday Night Massacre) are spot on.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So if the attorney firings were partisan political actions then it WAS appropriate to use personal email accounts!
Troll? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Troll? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if you hate Bush you shouldn't stand for the power grab the Congress is going for lately. There is a reason we have a separation of powers. If you keep heading down this road the president becomes a figurehead, and soon the people that write the laws will be enforcing them as well.
Are you seriously worried about the legislative branch running wild over the executive?!? Don't you have that completely and totally backwards? The current administration has evidenced a wildly outrageous interpretation of a supreme and nearly unchecked executive branch (energy policy secrecy, war, torture, rendition, signing statements, FEMA, FISA, domestic wiretapping, habeas corpus, scientific report "editing" us attorney purge, etc etc [talkingpointsmemo.com]). Whether you like Bush or not, you are deluded to think the executive is in danger of becoming too powerless. The "power grab" you bemoan is the first inkling of actual checks and balances that we've seen in 6 years, and it is not only legal, but is also the way our government is intended to run. Congress has the responsibility [cdfe.org] for oversight, and the recent reversion to it is nothing but welcome.
-Ted
Past mistakes don't excuse current ones! (Score:3, Insightful)
A past precident does not excuse current mistakes! If I walk up to you and punch you in the face and I get away with it, that doesn't make it right for me to walk up again and kick you in the stomach. Wrong is wrong. I'm disgusted by the lack of a sense of justice around here.
Waiting for FOX News' take on this... (Score:5, Insightful)
------
On a similar note, I read this quote today by Lee Iacocca regarding the Bush administration:
"Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have."
Don't forget 18 USC 1001 (Score:3, Interesting)
"....Whoever...
...covers up by any trick, scheme, or device
a material fact...
in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or both."
Some people (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the penalty for violating internal White House policy, I asked? "I don't believe the staff manual contains penalties for failure to preserve," the lawyer said.
Stanzel, possibly unwittingly, offered one possible explanation for why the rule on preservation was flouted so widely: Because there was apparently no prospect of personal consequences. "There are no personal violations of the Presidential Records Act, but you can have a personal violation of the Hatch Act," he said.
The lawyer criticized the crystal-clear (to me) ban on using non-White House e-mail for official purposes as being "too concise" and described a new, more extensive White House policy
Our government has become everything that the first settlers to America were trying to get away from.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yes it has and then some. there is a last resort solution the founding fathers added into the constitution. how many guns do you own? get them while you still can before the "loop hole" is closed.
you do own guns right?
Re:Some people (Score:5, Funny)
Right now I'm homeless. If I owned a gun the police would've taken it long ago and probably made me a felon for carrying it.
Re:Some people (Score:4, Funny)
Yup, you're a democrat.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Read somewhere recently that the pilgrims were used by the British Monarchy to establish a beachhead in the new world:
1. Send some malcontents to colonize the 'new world'.
2. Exterminate the 'savages' who already live there.
3. Follow the first settlers with bureaucrats and more settlers.
4. Profit!!!
(there's no need for a '???' step, because this is what actually happened.)
The profit was interrupted by that pe
Re:Some people (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Some people (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me an example. I don't dispute that presidents are always trying to grab more power, but I disagree that this has increased over time, as you claim. Probably the most dictatorial president ever, the one that eliminated more civil rights than any other, was Abraham Lincoln. Bush's Guantanamo is nothing compared to Lincoln's suspension of habeaus corpus for US citizens and the arrest and detention of anyone even suspected of sympathizing with the South - with no trial, speedy or otherwise. Most of the 'rights' that people claim are being taken away didn't exist 100 years ago the way we think of them. Torture of criminal suspects was legal. Anyone expressing a dissenting opinion could be arrested.
Sure, the world is going to hell in a handbasket, but it always has been, and there is nothing particularly worse about the times are living in -- it's just that we are here to see it first hand.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd say the concentration camps are worse than the prisons that Abraham Lincoln used, but only because I know Japanese-American families who survive
Re:Some people (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, Lincoln did not have the power to suspend habeas corpus, so he should have been impeached and removed from office.
The scary thing about that period of time is that the executive branch would simply ignore court decisions they didn't like. In Ex parte Merryman, the SCOTUS ruled that the suspension was not in consultation with Congress, and was therefore unconstitutional. If the tribunals come before the SCOTUS again and are ruled unconstitutional, Bush can really ignore the decision. I highly doubt there are enough Republicans to break rank and remove Bush in an impeachment proceeding.
Re:Is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Really? Great! Could you get back my Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet from 1987? I've been looking for that sucker forever.
Re:Parallels... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a total outrage!!!! (Score:4, Informative)
I can't think of no better way to refute this sort of spew than to quote one if its finest purveyors back at you. Wall Street Journal, April 6, 2005 [opinionjournal.com]:
More than a few conservatives have been crying foul, or whitewash, in part because Mr. Berger's plea means he'll likely avoid jail and lose his security clearance for only three years. So we called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. "There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals," said Mr. Hillman. "There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission."
So, recapping: your analogy is flawed, your point is wrong, and my guess is you knew all of this and went ahead and said it anyways. Cuz that's how you people operate. Lie till you get caught, then go on the offensive when you do.
Re:What a total outrage!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
And btw, hah. You know you've won the argument when the other side starts trotting out grievances dating back to the Civil War.
Re:What a total outrage!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
What is not customary is firing 8 of them - the same ones you appointed, no less - in the middle of your term, for dubious reasons which may have included, but not been limitted to the fact that many of these 8 attorney's apparently either refused to back off on investigations of Republicans, or refused to vigorously persue investigations of Democrats - probably because in both scenario's they acted based on what they felt was warranted by the available evidence. In other words they acted as they were supposed to, as unbiased officers of the law, not as political shrills which is what Bush wanted them to be.
By the way, has anyone besides me realised that with 8 of the 93 attornies fired for not doing enough to go after the Democrats or too much to go after the Republicans, that leaves 85 who, by implication, are doing plenty to go after the Democrats and ignoring the mis-steps of the Republicans. Shudder.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Non-issue: Get the law straight (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is true.
At issue, however, are the emails that are *KNOWN* to have been sent via these domains that are official government business. Scott Jennings (a Rove assistant) was interfacing with DOJ on the USA firings via his gwb43.com account. It's been openly acknowledged that Rove more or less exclusively used the RNC supplied email - both for his partisan activity and for his official governmental acti
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Summary: While the Democrats are jumping on the opportunity to bash Bush and company, it's really Bush and Company's own fault that there is any room to question the legality of it because they instituted some bad laws to begin with. In short, both sides are in the wrong on this one. The president dug himself into a mudhole to start and now the democrats are throwing more mud around to make the mess bigger.
Detail: To un
Re:Slow news day, huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
He got away with the remark. The reason he was fired was the long history of prior remarks that was unearthed once the story broke. What really finished him off was the series of attacks on Gwen Eifel.
Same thing happened with Trent Lott and George Allen. They mouthed off crypto-racist comments for years. Once the story broke it became obvious that it wasn't just a one-off mis-speaking, it was a pattern.
The only slight element of injustice is that Imus is nowhere near the worst offender out there. Ann Coulter's schtick is way more offensive but she still gets away with it. Matt Druge regularly gets caught 'making shit up' like his non-existent 'source' for the hit piece he did on Ware last week. But they don't get called on it because, well there are different standards for wingnuts. they are not expected to tell the truth or be civil so they can get away with it.
Twenty years ago it was the right that used to be behind this type of media firestorm. There used to be an amazing sit-com called SOAP which was completely brilliant. The religious right got it taken off the air.
Imus is no great loss to culture. SOAP was. So were the numerous programs like SOAP which simply could not be made until HBO started.