Bush Cover-Up In Progress?
Tweet
I hope our new congressional majority is aware of this story. The Bush administration is firing U.S. attorneys conducting corruption inquiries into the Bush administration itself. It’s Nixon, redux.
49 Responses to “Bush Cover-Up In Progress?”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I’m curious to see how the wingnuts who contribute to this site spin this one.
Indefensible.
How’s this for spin — I hope it’s true…
YaY!
Spin? I’d like to first see if it’s right. Josh Marshall has been wrong so many times it’s pathetic that Oliver even links to his stuff.
I should have expected. Nothing like cheering the blatant abuse of power.
Typical.
Frank, do you and the rodeo emcee from Borat have coffee together?
Hey, trakjoe: You are a liar. You expected me to come up with some defense of the President, and I did not.
I’m just glad he did something to get the hyenas off his ass.
Better than hiring his relatives for cash.
Neil Bush on line one.
As expected, they cheer the abuse of power and show the same contempt for the rule of law as do Cheney andBush.
They hate every American institution and institution that stands between conservatives and their power. Their one true principle. Thanks for laying it out.
Jay, I have no idea if the information is true but if it is, what is your position on this? Do you cheer abuse of power like the Archie Bunker of New Paltz or do you agree that this is wrong?
Spin? I’d like to first see if it’s right.
Now that the dems have the keys to the subpoena cabinet, isn’t it funny how many wingnuts are suddenly discovering – “hey! Rushing to judgment is just not good!”
PS: kudos to Frank for being an honest fascist.
I’m not a fascist. I’ll forgive you, because I’m sure you don’t what one is.
Frank just hates democracy.
Well, Josh Marshall also wrote once:
We KNOW that two senior members of the Bush administration intentionally blew the cover of an undercover CIA officer whose job is combating weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation. And their motivation was pure politics.
So what Marshall ‘knows’ is pretty much open for scrutiny.
Crank has the lowdown on Marshall’s ‘Plamegate’ blather. Two whole years of what ** WE KNOW ** which turned out to be squat.
So, if you choose to believe that he writes because he writes it, be my guest.
All of what Marshall writes is up for scrutiny. But he’s more often right than not. After all, you thought the Iraq invasion was a positive strategic decision, didn’t you, Jay?
I shouldn’t be so harsh; the Jays of the world who leapt up begging for Bush to deceive them will be rightly scorned by future generations as some of the dumbest fucks who ever fucked dumb. It’s only natural that they project their own yawning failures onto others.
Jay, you dodged my question. If Marshall is right, is Bush wrong?
I like the guy who stands up for George Bush and Dick Cheney and Fox News slamming Josh Marshall for accuracy.
I don’t hate democracy. I mistrust democracy, which I am thankful I don’t live in one. You should be, too.
Righties cheer on Bush usurping control of the nations’ judiciary with no other purpose than to obstruct justice and advance his own agenda and then balk at being called out as fascist. Brilliant trolling.
Feinstein already made a speech about the purge on the floor. Apparently seven or so forced resignations are confirmed.
I guess we know why the WH was so eager to renew the “Patriot” Act. This ties in nicely with Bush’s Secret Service “deal” to obstruct investigations into it’s connections to Jack Abramoff by sealing visitor records? Forget impeachment, maybe we should consider using the RICO Act on the whole GOP.
It really is funny watching the devoted citizens of Wingnutistan cling to the idea that despite Libby’s obstruction of justice, Novak’s conflicting testimony, not the least of which was the claim that he had three sources, Cheney’s, what, five or so trips to the Grand Jury, the multiple contacts between Libby and multiple media outlets, all of whom refused to reveal Valerie Plame’s identity (Novak excepted, of course, despite a direct request from the CIA), and the possible shredding of evidence by the White House (remember the weekend delay in securing documents…just an innocent “oops,” I’m sure), the “loss” of the phone records, and so on, that the Armitage oh-so-convenient confession closes the case.
Yeah.
As long as Armitage doesn’t end up in Fort Marcy Park with a “suicide” bullet fired from 15 feet away, everything is O – tay!
Frank, you just moved from cranky curmudgeon to standard issue crank. Next you’ll be telling me that GWB knew about the 9/11 conspiracy before it happened…
zadura: I was just having fun…
In the words of that great philosopher, Jimmy Page, “Does anybody remember laughter?”
Z, if this and if that. We can sit here all day and play ‘if’ games. I’m not interested in the ‘if.’ I am interested in whether or not the story is true. Based on Marshall’s track record, I wouldn’t make a decision either way.
And Oliver, what does Fox, Cheney and Bush have to do with Marshall? If he’s wrong, he’s wrong. Somebody else being wrong doesn’t change that so your retort is pointless.
And Doc, saying somebody is right more than they are wrong is not much to brag about if the ratio is as bad as Marshall’s. It’s too bad actually. Marshall is an intelligent guy, but he’s become so obsessed with trying to find scandal that it has clouded his judgment.
Thus far, there isn’t any evidence that these resignations took place for the reasons Marshall suggests. What also bothers me are people in Congress (Like Senator Feinstein) bitching about provisions in the law THEY VOTED TO AUTHORIZE.
Next time Senator, read what you’re voting for or have your legal eagles do a better job.
Thus far, there isn’t any evidence that these resignations took place for the reasons Marshall suggests. What also bothers me are people in Congress (Like Senator Feinstein) bitching about provisions in the law THEY VOTED TO AUTHORIZE.
See, Jay, that’s like the Iraq war resolution: congress may vote to give authority to the executive, but that doesn’t mean that a congressperson can’t bitch about it if she sees that authority being abused.
As for the rest of your high dudgeon: I’ll repeat my earler observation: you rightwingers only care so much about a rush to judgment when one of your own is in the crosshairs. Disagree? Prove me wrong.
but that doesn’t mean that a congressperson can’t bitch about it if she sees that authority being abused.
7-10 US attorneys out of how many? Probably over 100. Feinstein also said this was being done under a ‘cloak’ of secrecy even though Marshall links to news stories about all of them. So much for that supposed cloak.
And proving somebody wrong is a logical fallacy. You have to prove you’re right. And even if your assertion were true, it wouldn’t make me wrong.
First of all Josh Marshall has become ridiculous. All he seems to do is recycle stuff from smaller local blogs.
OTOH, I too wish Bush could have made a better appoitment for the Arkansas seat. I was thinking he should have picked somebody who just came back from a tour in Iraq; who had served in the Army JAG -say for ten years; who had prosecuted a famous case like US vs Mikel; who had graduated cum laude from a major law school, and who had taken classes at Oxford.
Wait a minute there is a guy who fits that requirement. Well, I’ll be damned. Its Tim Griffin. Wonder why Marshall didn’t tell us all of this. Could it be he has turned into a laz(ier) ideological hack. Gee, the only thing worse than Marshall’s lazy, dishonest effort would have been just to link to it as if it were worth reading.
Sorry to rain on your hate fest, boys and girls.
Dugger
I haven’t heard anything substantive said about Marshall yet, except that he was wrong about Plame. What serious case can the wingnuts make against him? I’m genuinely interested.
Oh and let us not forget that when Janet Reno took over as Attorney General, she, on orders from the White House, fired all 93 US Attorneys in February 1993.
Funny, Jay, I saw “Janet Reno” and “fire,” and thought about a completely different abuse of power.
let us not forget that when Janet Reno took over as Attorney General, she, on orders from the White House, fired all 93 US Attorneys in February 1993.
And they were all replaced with “interim appointments” beyond the review of anyone outside the Clinton administration?
There are two parts to this story boys and girls: 1) the firings, and 2) the replacements and the manner of their selection.
And they were all replaced with “interim appointments” beyond the review of anyone outside the Clinton administration?
Who knows? The point is, removing US Attorneys in the middle of their terms is obviously not “unprecedented.”
And exactly what cases against the administration are all of these attorneys involved with? For instance, what corruption inquiry into the administration was David Iglesias working on?
Who knows?
I do. They were replaced with Senate-confirmed candidates because that was the law in effect at the time.
The renewal of the USA Patriot Act changed that.
Quaker, so what? What does it prove? N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
It proves nothing beyond that they are acting within the bounds of the law. Whether you agree or disagree with it, that’s the law.
I’ve had it with all the sizzle. Where the hell is the steak?
Definitely a cover-up in progress. They fired Carol Lam in San Diego because she dared to go after Randy Cunningham.
CDWard,
Does your elevator go the top floor?
Cunningham resigned from Congress and pled guilty. Isn’t it just a tad too late to go after Cunningham’s prosecutor? I mean if they were as evil as you think and cared that much about Cunningham, wouldn’t they have saved him in the first place?
Fundamentally, Dugger, it was about the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, not just Cunningham. Live long enough, and you will learn that corruption is often a feature of institutions, not simply individuals.
It proves nothing beyond that they are acting within the bounds of the law.
The recently changed law. The recently surreptitiously changed law. The law changed recently and surreptitiously by a clause stuck into an unrelated bill by Arlen Specter at the last minute in conference committee.
Nah, nothing to see here.
Just an awfully big coincidence, if you ask me.
A big, fat, huge, drooling coincidence with blood-red eyes.
Quaker, care to enlighten everybody else with an answer to my question?
What active investigations against the Bush administration did these Bush appointed US attorneys have on-going at the time of their resignation?
Can anybody answer that or would everybody rather do Oliver Stone/Art Bell impersonations?
I’m sorry, Jay, did you have some input as to why the Bush White House wants to get rid of these attorneys? Given Bush’s track record of appointing personnel with one overriding qualification – loyalty to Bush – to think this is a completely honest move is the conspiracy theory.
It sure will be nice for the Republicans to rap up the Duke Cunningham investigation though.
Isn’t it just a tad too late to go after Cunningham’s prosecutor?
Dusty Foggo.
Quaker is correct-Carol Lam was continuing her investigation into people who were associated with Randy Cunningham, such as Bush appointee Dusty Foggo at the CIA. I’m sure Lam’s replacement will continue the investigation-NOT.
Still a bunch of supposition, but no facts.
Still waiting as well for somebody to tell me what investigations the other attorneys were heading up involving the Bush admin.
Jay, do you have some explanation for Bush nudging these USAs out? No, because you are a moonbat.
Midderpidge, Oliver and everybody else have already provided the reason. I want to see supporting evidence of that. Nobody has provided it, which means Oliver and company are full of crapola and/or whipping up another conspiracy theory.
None of that really matters, tough, Jay. Fact is I smell a rat. And so do a lot of other people. It’s kind of funny the way the admin. hides in plain sight the amount of shit that they pull.
and no one calls ‘em on it or if they do, they are written off as “conspiracy nuts.”
hbkdzrpwu zvgk psydv qydekjlwh nkiq ylneak awjhcx