Our nation's future hangs in the balance. Will the GOP leadership fight for it?
By paulseale Posted in Congress — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
After reading RedState's analysis of the Sunday talk show circuit and watching a bit of the Plame - Toensing hearings held last week on Capital Hill I come one way with one impression: Our nation's future hangs in the balance.
Read on . . .
What we are seeing now is the Democrats proceeding to apply the type of power plays that many of us warned about last November. They seek to now make scandals out of situations like the attorney firings which might be political bungling, but did not break the law.
Should we expect this? Sure. Its politics and some might even see it as pay back for the scandals wrought during the Clinton administration. We should also expect the legislative branch to try and usurp as much power for themselves as possible during this grab, including commanding our forces abroad in Iraq.
With statements made today from Leahy and Schumer it is clear to me that they intend to try and finish off the Bush administration while stuffing their pockets. The question is how far are do they willing to go with such unchecked power with "no accountability." My personal belief is that Democrats will be ramping up impeachment hearings by the end of the summer recess or the beginning of the fall session.
Perhaps what is most demoralizing about this matter is the lack of will to engage these individuals or return fire from the White House or Republican leadership. They expect Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or bloggers to come to the rescue, but there are only so many things we can do. The gloves must come off.
This is going to be a fight for the foundation of our country over the next six months. Expect the media to take the side of Democrats and continue to give them truly unchecked powers with no accountability. History has proven that truth can and will prevail if leaders emerge and take the fight to those who seek to impose harmful government policies on our nation. The question is will anyone do so?
How do you explain the two Republican senators who have already called for Gonzales to resign? I saw Representative Issa (R-CA) the other day and he was livid at the administration. He clearly believed that Justice Department officials had lied under oath to Congress.
Sometimes the problem isn't an unwillingness to fight; it's genuinely improper (illegal?) behavior. As is so often the case in Washington, the precipitating event turns out not to be the real problem -- it's the actions and statements afterward.
This is still unfolding.
Is that the firings were above board compared to Bill Clinton firing all 93 attorneys in 1993, some of which were close to indicting Democrats (Rostenkowski) and others were looking at White Water.
I also believe what you are are stating points to an unwillingness to fight what will be an onslaught of which hunts being trumped up to undermind and neutralize the last branch of government held by Republicans.
...start of hs term, as had been done with other Presidents, Democratic and Repblican. They were a matter of changing of the guard, as had been done with other Presidents. This was pick and choose, basaed on political opportunism, WHICH WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN FINE... had they not lied about it. The lies are always much worse than the action. Had they said, "Yes, it was political, as is our right, so you can all screw off... " there would have been an uproar, but it wouldn't have had any teeth.
As in, names. How can we know which Administration officials to robotically defend if we don't even know which ones you're accusing?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
...and many in his office.
The "White House" who said that the idea started with Miers, then changed their story.
Start there.
Let's see those lies. I don't go on liberal sites and expect them to make my arguments for me; show the same courtesy, if you please.
Hey, if assuming that I'm just being stupid and/or contrary gets you to do it, then go right ahead and assume.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Mr. Gonzales, under oath, regarding whether or not the administration planned to use the Patriot act loophole that would allow them to nominate attornies general without ever having to consult Congress.:
"I am fully committed, as the administration’s fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney."
THEN, the e-mail from his Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson regarding the same authority.
"There is some risk that we’ll lose the authority, but if we don’t ever exercise it then what’s the point of having it?"
"I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee two months ago.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/stories/2007/03/18/03...
"Meanwhile, the White House dropped its contention Friday that former counsel Harriet Miers first raised the idea of firing U.S. attorneys, blaming "hazy memories" as e-mails shed new light on Karl Rove's role.
Presidential press secretary Tony Snow previously had asserted Miers was the person who came up with the idea, but he said Friday, "I don't want to try to vouch for origination." He said, "At this juncture, people have hazy memories."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/16/politics/main2580260.shtml
This is actually silly, because like I said to start this... the administrations problem is that they were not willing to simply own up to what they were trying to do. It may have looked sneaky and underhanded, but it appears not to be ILLEGAL and had they not tried to cover it up... the "It" being firing prosecutors for political reasons and using the Patriot Act to get around the Senate confirmation process... we could have an honest discussion about whether or not to change the laws.
The one that's linking Gonzalez and his office in a mindshare, that is. Then again, the actual transcript - and, by the way? From now on, source everything. You no longer have any leeway on this - indicates that his office is talking about what to do if they can't get a regular confirmation, not how they're going to ignore the confirmation process in the first place.
So, no, not a lie: the adminstration was not planning "to use the Patriot act loophole that would allow them to nominate attornies general without ever having to consult Congress". They were planning how they could get the AGs they wanted in the worse-case scenario of not being able to get Congress on-board. Which is their privilege.
Theres going to be an endless torrent of this stuff. Oodles of links to memos that were leaked for the soul purpose of creating a negative impression.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
That this will be just the response. There is no direct evidence that Gonzales contradicted himself so instead we get a lot of smoke and are told infer the fire. Even if there were "evidence" This is a matter of intent. A notably difficult thing to determine and a changeable item at that.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
""I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee two months ago.
All have subsequently admitted it was political and that there was no work related issues that warrented the dismissal of these individuals.
...I mean that NO ONE in the administration is pretending anymore that the firings were work related. So that's the ALL I speak of.
That the AG executes the presidents orders so you have not made your point. The people in question serve at the presidents pleasure.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
After all, *there were no WMD's*, yet Saddam lied and stonewalled as if there were WMD's. Look where it got him. Yes indeedy, "the lies are always much worse than the action."
You're all for prosecuting Republicans for lying and blowing smoke about non-crimes.
Naturally, I thought you supported prosecuting the head of the Republican Guard for lying about his non-crime.
it's time to retire "Clinton fired all 93." Clinton's not president anymore, and this isn't about him. I don't think anyone benefits from having standards of integrity based on what Clinton did. When he left office, I hoped that every future administration would exceed those standards. I want the president and his (and her someday?) administration to be honest and ethical, not simply as honest or a little more honest than President X and his administration.
Further, the potential problem here is not the firings, but the statements, email, and testimony about the firings. Nothing Clinton did affects the rightness or wrongness of what's been done in this case, and it ought to be judged against a meaningful standard that every American should expect from every president -- regardless of party or ideology.
I thought Gonzales was pathetic in his press conference. He sounded like someone who was supervising from his vacation home on the dark side of the moon. If that's the best he can do, we'd all be better off if he were replaced. And that, I think, is why Sununu and Smith have called for him to resign. I imagine they think he is a liability now, something this administration can do without. The president can try to convey strength by fighting everything the Democrats question or he can be a strong leader by setting a high standard and making sure people live up to it. By getting rid of Gonzales, he wouldn't be giving in to Democrats; he'd be honoring that standard. He also might take some wind out the sails of some "investigators."
Something else that should be retired (by everyone on earth) is the statement "mistakes were made." William Schneider cleverly called it the "past exonerative," and anyone who resorts to it deserves to be ridiculed.
Note: Clinton fired all 93, but it didn't prevent Rostenkowski's downfall and it certainly didn't end White Water investigations. So, if that was what he was after, he must have been disappointed.
Bush should fire Gonzales and all 93 US Attornies Genral once more. He should send Chuckles and the other circus ring masters of the Senate Judiciary Committee the list of his 94 appointees and tell them they have 5 business days to start the confirmation hearings.
Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)
that wouldn't help anyone (and I think you know that). It just might make the president look a little foolish. And the Senate doesn't do anything in five business days (or at least not reliably).
scandals. THis is utter BS that has nothing to do with anything. I'd like to see Mitch McConnel introduce a resolution requiring the Senate to return a time-prorated amount of their salary to the US Treasury for the entire length of this BS hearing.
Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)
we know yet that this is a "manufactured" scandal. Why would Republican senators be so upset if there is nothing to be upset about?
The answer to that is simple - they do not want to get caught up in another tempest in a teapot.. you know, the same tempest which is the "plame" thing (which David Korn, her husband and everyone else released plame's name before novak, yet who got a black eye out of the deal).
this, like many other "scandals" during the Bush administration are understood by the beltway types and manufactured and trumped up by the media to empower Democrats and "take down" Republicans.
First of all, having a couple of Republican senators speak up on the issue isn't somehow proof of wrongdoing. With the president's low numbers, it seems a lot of Republicans in districts that aren't completely locked up are looking for "safe" ways to mark out disagreement with the president to avoid the "rubber stamp" label. Taking offense to AGAG, who is a legitimate doofus as far as I can tell, is a pretty safe bet.
Ashcroft demanded the resignation of all 93 attorneys at one time? Whether or not you can are you saying that it's alright to fire all 93 at once or fire 8 halfway thru a second term?
Further, that it is wrong to fire an attorney who's a republican and that it is therefore only a right to fire members of the opposite party?
As for lies, a friendly word of caution, you may not want to go there. Regardless of ample examples from across the aisle plus the memorable if uncountable examples of Bush's predecessor, you have a situation where clumsiness may have trumped directness, which wouldn't have helped anyway.
Why? That goes to your last sentence, the one about "teeth" and "uproar", both of which are supplied by the media as routinely evidenced over the past six years. Please spare me the effort of lengthy and tiresome review but in the absence of which I would advise at the least less certainty about uproarious teeth or toothy uproars.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
but Bush did replace "all but a few" US Attorney's during his first year in office. He even could've replaced all of the US Attorney's at the beginning of his second term. What's odd is his replacing of a few of them in the middle of his second term, with no real explanation. Especially when their replacements could be potentially confirmed without Congress via the Patriot Act.
This administration has just not learned how to handle the media, or how to react when called out for seemingly non-issues. The firings aren't really the story here (if there's one at all), it's how Gonzalez and the White House responded to the inquiry's. We've seen this over the past 7 years. Either the Bush Admin. responds poorly, or not at all. Which leaves the talking heads and critics to fill the void.
Richard
For a long time I thought the Bush administration was employing the rope-a-dope strategy and kept waiting for someone to finally get a belly full of the Dems politics and stand up for this administration. Now, I am not sure they have the will or ability to fight. We are bleeding profusely from a thousand cuts.