That White House check can promote some serious flip-floppery.
» Breaking News
Dylan Ryder [Breaking Beauty]
Eva Mendes Promotes The Spirit In Spain
Nadia Styles [Breaking Beauty]
Ex-AOL CEO Jonathan Miller Plots Yahoo Takeover
California Couple Kelly Layne Lau, Michael Luther Schumacher Arrested For Chaining Up Teen Child
You may be right about Snow’s quick turnaround, but he doesn’t dictate to the President; the President dictates to him.
Let’s say it’s true that Tony gets a pass on what he wrote in 1998 because he happens to be working for the president. So what’s your take on hese nuggets on l’Affaire Bubba, from leading lights in the Conservative movement:
“But aren’t claims of executive privilege usually reserved for national security matters — in particular, matters of state secrets and foreign affairs? ”
- Paul Gigot
“Now, if the public increasingly sees this scandal about their right to know, so much for executive privilege and Secret Service privilege, and no one is above the law, [The President]’s in a lot of trouble.”
- Kate O’Beirne
“I think the President knew this claim on a matter unrelated to national security was a loser all along, but made it in lower court to run down the clock. Smart; it bought him four months.”
- William Safire
Check this out if you get a chance.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, Jimmm. I wasn’t giving Snow a pass. I was saying that he’s not really changing his point of view, he’s (technically speaking) expressing the President’s point of view.
If the President, as I do, views l’affaire Libby as a fiasco, then he doesn’t want a repeat (we’re talking about the President’s thoughts, now — not mine).
I really don’t think this has to do with anything as heady as “separation of powers” or “executive privilege”.
This is more like,”I’m not stepping into a Democrat(ic) buzz saw.”
While I would agree that when Tony Snow is behind the podium, he is the voice of the White House and therefore cannot deviate from his prepared statements/thoughts, the very idea that he would not defend his comments from then and try to weasel out of there being a double standard strikes me as being pretty douchebaggy.
“…douchebaggy…”
That sounds about right.
This is more like,”I’m not stepping into a Democrat(ic) buzz saw.”
No, it’s more like “I’m not letting the Democrats get any closer to uncovering our shoddy contempt for the justice system.”
Regardless of why they were fired, there is no crime. They serve at the pleasure of the President.
Two words:
Witch. Hunt.
Actually, if they were fired because they were investigating the wrong people, or because they weren’t investigating the wrong people enough, there was, in fact, a crime.
Three words:
Obstruction. Of. Justice.
Not to mention violating the Presidential Records act.
Frank, Libby was guilty. The White House itself gets smeared with the conviction and it’s hard to credit your opinion that it stinks as the administration promised an investigation and never undertook one. Furthermore, with any security breach, not to mention one that plays out in the newspapers, involved parties are duty bound to step forward and report their actions in the matter, which of course did not happen here.
You can whine all you want when every bit of evidence points at coverup and CYA.
Two words:
Witch. Hunt.
I’ll see your two words, Pedro, and raise you to four:
That. Dog. Won’t. Hunt.
Regardless of why they were fired, there is no crime.
Actually, I think Pedro’s hit upon a can’t-miss slogan for the Bush team:
“We may be unethical as hell, but we ain’t criminals!”
Jody, what part of “can be fired for ANY reason” don’t you understand?
He could fire them because he didn’t like their hair….
My impression is that at least in the case of the San Diego USA, she simply wasn’t re-upped at the end of her term.
Seeing as she indicted and convicted a sitting republican, the white house didn’t do a good job of “obstructing justice” did they? If they were really interested in protecting him, they would simply have removed her immediately.
Doesn’t pass the “sniff” test…
Just remember Ed Meese’s standard of morality: “Never been indicted!”
Civics lesson for Pedro: Congress has a responsibility to investigate apparent abuses of executive power, even if those abuses don’t rise to the level of criminal.
And it’s far from obvious that these abuses are not criminal - obstruction of justice and lying to congress are crimes.
If what Rove and company was doing was completely above board, let them come and testify, under oath.
It is not an abuse of power to fire (or in this case, not extend the contract of…) an employee.
Scooter Libby was completely above board (note nobody was indicted for “outing” the “secret agent” valerie plame?), but he was entrapped by a grand jury because he was TRYING to answer their questions.
If the democrats were interested in the truth, they would simply take the presidents offer and question people in private…but they aren’t, they want a show trial and a fishing expedition. Now they will get nothing…
…entrapped by the Grand Jury. Right.
What people like Pedo forget, they already tried interviewing Bushites without transcripts and such in this matter and they feel as if they were lied to.
Also, Libby was found to be guilty. For lying. From an administration with a big reputation for lying. Who wouldn’t want them under oath?
Congress has a responsibility to investigate apparent abuses of executive power, even if those abuses don’t rise to the level of criminal.
I guess I missed that paragraph in the Constitution.
Consider Frank, at the root of this scandal is the Bush White House’s political abuse of a loophole inserted into the Patriot act presumably to fight terror. Why shouldn’t congress investigate that abuse. They may need that investigation to sway votes necessary to close that loophole.
Congress can investigate whatever it wants.
But there is investigation, and there is investigation. As a former Federal investigator, I know the difference between pulling out all the stops, and letting somebody slide because an investigation isn’t worth it.
This whole thing falls into the category of the latter.