It's the lying, stupid

[TexasTiger 12,963]

Statements On Firings of Prosecutors Are Key Issue

By Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, March 15, 2007; Page A01

In testimony on Jan. 18, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department had no intention of avoiding Senate input on the hiring of U.S. attorneys.

Just a month earlier, D. Kyle Sampson, who was then Gonzales's chief of staff, laid out a plan to do just that. In an e-mail, he detailed a strategy for evading Arkansas Democrats in installing Tim Griffin, a former GOP operative and protege of presidential adviser Karl Rove, as the U.S. attorney in Little Rock.

"We should gum this to death," Sampson wrote to a White House aide on Dec. 19. "[A]sk the senators to give Tim a chance . . . then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in 'good faith,' of course.""good faith", of course

The conflict between documents released this week and previous administration statements is quickly becoming the central issue for lawmakers who are angry about the way Gonzales and his aides handled the coordinated firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

Democrats and Republicans are demanding to know whether Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and other Justice officials misled them in sworn testimony over the past two months. Yesterday, Republican Sen. John E. Sununu (N.H.) joined a handful of Democrats in calling on President Bush to fire his attorney general and longtime friend.

Gonzales has declined to address the apparent contradictions in detail, saying only that he was unaware of the specifics of the plan that Sampson was orchestrating.

The inconsistencies between Justice's positions and the documents are numerous. On Feb. 23, for example, a Justice legislative affairs aide wrote to Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that the department "was not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin." But internal Justice e-mails show that "getting him appointed is important" to Rove and was closely monitored by political aides in the White House.

Last week, senior Justice official William E. Moschella told a House Judiciary subcommittee that the White House was not consulted on the firings until the end of the process.

But the documents released this week show that the plan began more than two years ago at the White House counsel's office, which initially suggested firing all 93 U.S. attorneys. Gonzales rejected that idea, and Sampson wrote back in January 2006 that Justice and the White House should "work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. Attorneys."

Schumer argued this week that Sampson "may well have obstructed justice" by not disclosing his communications to Congress and other senior Justice officials, who had said for weeks that the White House had only a limited role in the removals. "There has been misleading statement after misleading statement, and these have been deliberately misleading statements," Schumer said yesterday.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also called yesterday for investigations by Congress and a special prosecutor looking at "whether any official has testified falsely in violation of federal perjury and obstruction of justice statutes."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7031400519.html

[AFTiger 282]

Out of curosity, when are Senator Schumer and Reid resigning for their misconduct?

[Bottomfeeder 244]

How many did Clinton fire 90 or so? Gonzales 8-9?

This is a typical rightwing talking point and/or distraction. Gonzales broke the law.

Rob's Blog 3/15 Bittersweet Pleasure Watching Bushco Implode

Bush's team is imploding. Gonzales-- we can do a pool on how many days he has left before he's toast.

Bush Team Goes into Distraction Mode

Bush's media masters have released old news, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, has confessed to being leader of the 9/11 attack But is this really hot news, or a tawdry, transparent effort to try to take the heat off Gonzales and Bush's cronies.

While We're Talking About Illegal Firings... Reinstate The US Attorneys

They shouldn't have been fired. Their replacements are political hacks. Dump the hacks and put the Attorneys back on the job pursuing corruption. That should be said every time there is a call for Gonzales head.

The Right wing echo chamber has been spoon feeding the talking point, "Clinton fired 93 prosecutors" as a justification for Bush and Gonzales. Sorry simpy-heads. This dog don't walk. The McClatchy Newspapers have done a great job covering the whole Gonzales Judiciary COrruption story, and now, they have a good article covering and debunking this bogus talking point. We're doing a pretty good job covering it too-- check these inside pages from our table of contents:

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=3139

[otterinbham 0]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards." And he's right.

AFTiger, in a nice little riposte, says, "You Democrats are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving, amoral bastards." And he's right, too.

When are you guys going to realize that both the Democrats and Republicans are equally despicable bodies? I mean, does anybody with a 3-digit IQ seriously believe that either party stands for goodness and light? Somebody explain this childlike faith to me, because nothing in my experience supports it.

So what's the solution? Uncritical support of a single party is the hallmark of half-baked, lazy nitwits. So start voting out everybody with unclean hands, and start thrusting power into the hands who worry more about the welfare of the country, rather than the welfare of their particular clique of friends.

[TexasTiger 12,963]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards."

I actually posted nothing of the sort. I posted a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of our government.

[TigerHeat 9]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards." And he's right.

AFTiger, in a nice little riposte, says, "You Democrats are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving, amoral bastards." And he's right, too.

When are you guys going to realize that both the Democrats and Republicans are equally despicable bodies? I mean, does anybody with a 3-digit IQ seriously believe that either party stands for goodness and light? Somebody explain this childlike faith to me, because nothing in my experience supports it.

So what's the solution? Uncritical support of a single party is the hallmark of half-baked, lazy nitwits. So start voting out everybody with unclean hands, and start thrusting power into the hands who worry more about the welfare of the country, rather than the welfare of their particular clique of friends.

If you don't have an ideology you don't have ideas. Ideas matter. Party matters. Neither party stands for goodness and light, but one of them is openly for defeat.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2008.

[otterinbham 0]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards." And he's right.

AFTiger, in a nice little riposte, says, "You Democrats are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving, amoral bastards." And he's right, too.

When are you guys going to realize that both the Democrats and Republicans are equally despicable bodies? I mean, does anybody with a 3-digit IQ seriously believe that either party stands for goodness and light? Somebody explain this childlike faith to me, because nothing in my experience supports it.

So what's the solution? Uncritical support of a single party is the hallmark of half-baked, lazy nitwits. So start voting out everybody with unclean hands, and start thrusting power into the hands who worry more about the welfare of the country, rather than the welfare of their particular clique of friends.

If you don't have an ideology you don't have ideas. Ideas matter. Party matters. Neither party stands for goodness and light, but one of them is openly for defeat.

See, I have an ideology. The problem is that neither party has one at this point, given their collective behavior over the past 15 years. And you can sit here and accuse the Dems of being openly for defeat, yet the current administration sowed the seeds for defeat in Iraq with terrible planning and shortsighted strategy. And please don't feed me the tired canard that the Republicans stand for limited government, given the mushrooming entitlement programs under this administration's watch.

[otterinbham 0]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards."

I actually posted nothing of the sort. I posted a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of our government.

Oh, don't be disingenuous, TT. I don't see you posting any articles about Democratic foulups, do I?

[TigerHeat 9]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards." And he's right.

AFTiger, in a nice little riposte, says, "You Democrats are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving, amoral bastards." And he's right, too.

When are you guys going to realize that both the Democrats and Republicans are equally despicable bodies? I mean, does anybody with a 3-digit IQ seriously believe that either party stands for goodness and light? Somebody explain this childlike faith to me, because nothing in my experience supports it.

So what's the solution? Uncritical support of a single party is the hallmark of half-baked, lazy nitwits. So start voting out everybody with unclean hands, and start thrusting power into the hands who worry more about the welfare of the country, rather than the welfare of their particular clique of friends.

If you don't have an ideology you don't have ideas. Ideas matter. Party matters. Neither party stands for goodness and light, but one of them is openly for defeat.

See, I have an ideology. The problem is that neither party has one at this point, given their collective behavior over the past 15 years. And while you can sit here at talk about the Dems being openly for defeat, yet the current administration sowed the seeds for defeat with terrible planning and shortsighted strategy. And please don't feed me the tired canard that the Republicans stand for limited government, given the mushrooming entitlement programs under this administration's watch.

Seeds of defeat, terrible planning, shortsighted strategy? Yes, I agree. I would also add poor generalship, lack of aggressive prosecution of the war, weak executive branch performance, and the fact that those we are fighting to free are stupid, backwards, and just not worth American blood and treasure. They will not help themselves at all. All of this blod, time, and effort being wasted over natural resources. Our money would be better spent helping those at home. Our troops could be home soon and the world would go right on spinning. Agree?

[TexasTiger 12,963]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards."

I actually posted nothing of the sort. I posted a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of our government.

Oh, don't be disingenuous, TT. I don't see you posting any articles about Democratic foulups, do I?

I've posted a few, but we are under a Republican administration which is unusually brazen about expanding its executive power. You're just upset because I caught you making stuff up on another thread that you are now ignoring. This post is about one of the top newstories of the day. You do realize this is a Republican administration, right? You're just trying to deflect with you're "geez they're really all the same" spiel.

[otterinbham 0]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards."

I actually posted nothing of the sort. I posted a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of our government.

Oh, don't be disingenuous, TT. I don't see you posting any articles about Democratic foulups, do I?

I've posted a few, but we are under a Republican administration which is unusually brazen about expanding its executive power. You're just upset because I caught you making stuff up on another thread that you are now ignoring. This post is about one of the top newstories of the day. You do realize this is a Republican administration, right? You're just trying to deflect with you're "geez they're really all the same" spiel.

That's because they ARE all the same. The entire point of my post is that you guys are really just arguing on behalf of your own gang of corrupt jackasses. I agree with George Wallace on next to nothing, but he did say one thing that's true: There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. I used to take issue with that. But the longer I live, the more I realize it's so.

And what thread are you referring to? Now, turning my attention to Tigerheat:

"Seeds of defeat, terrible planning, shortsighted strategy? Yes, I agree. I would also add poor generalship, lack of aggressive prosecution of the war, weak executive branch performance, and the fact that those we are fighting to free are stupid, backwards, and just not worth American blood and treasure. They will not help themselves at all. All of this blod, time, and effort being wasted over natural resources. Our money would be better spent helping those at home. Our troops could be home soon and the world would go right on spinning. Agree?"

I'm no isolationist. Far from it. But I spend considerable time dealing with military people in Huntsville. Captains, majors, and colonels, mostly representing intelligence and special forces. And when they're complaining about the total lack of a cassus belli in Iraq, not to mention the entire absence of strategy, then I have to listen.

[TigerHeat 9]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards."

I actually posted nothing of the sort. I posted a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of our government.

Oh, don't be disingenuous, TT. I don't see you posting any articles about Democratic foulups, do I?

I've posted a few, but we are under a Republican administration which is unusually brazen about expanding its executive power. You're just upset because I caught you making stuff up on another thread that you are now ignoring. This post is about one of the top newstories of the day. You do realize this is a Republican administration, right? You're just trying to deflect with you're "geez they're really all the same" spiel.

That's because they ARE all the same. The entire point of my post is that you guys are really just arguing on behalf of your own gang of corrupt jackasses. I agree with George Wallace on next to nothing, but he did say one thing that's true: There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. I used to take issue with that. But the longer I live, the more I realize it's so.

And what thread are you referring to? Now, turning my attention to Tigerheat:

"Seeds of defeat, terrible planning, shortsighted strategy? Yes, I agree. I would also add poor generalship, lack of aggressive prosecution of the war, weak executive branch performance, and the fact that those we are fighting to free are stupid, backwards, and just not worth American blood and treasure. They will not help themselves at all. All of this blod, time, and effort being wasted over natural resources. Our money would be better spent helping those at home. Our troops could be home soon and the world would go right on spinning. Agree?"

I'm no isolationist. Far from it. But I spend considerable time dealing with military people in Huntsville. Captains, majors, and colonels, mostly representing intelligence and special forces. And when they're complaining about the total lack of a cassus belli in Iraq, not to mention the entire absence of strategy, then I have to listen.

The point of my previous post is that those exact same sentiments were held by many critics of the Civil War during the conflict. Lincoln had entire brigades of politicians and newspapermen calling for his head for incompetence, poor planning, misleading them about the war. The same thing occurred in World War I, Korea, the Aristook War, War of 1812, and many other conflicts the US has angaged in.

What would be an appropriate proximate cause for the invasion of Iraq? If you can't get past the "George Bush is a liar" meme then there can never be one under any circumstance. Clinton bombed the stew out of Iraq without consulting any of our allies nor the UN. He also believed that Saddam had NBC capabilities and a truly malevolent intent towards the free world.

Why do you care what military people think regarding a reason for the war? Are you advocating that they should have special responsibility in determing when the US is at war? We have civilian control of the military on purpose. They do what they are told to the best of their ability.

For those that have not served in the military, let me explain two things quickly. Special Forces should not impress you with their knowledge of anything. They are tough, smart soldiers, but they don't know anything more about the world than anyone else. They have a particular job to do, but that job has nothing to do with policy-making. As far as the intel folks....their job is to put together estimates of enemy capabilities and intentions. This is guess work with some science attached. Sometimes you get great estimates....other times you get the Chinese crossing of the Yalu River. The estimate you get is only a snapshot of what things looked like yesterday. People and equipment move all the time, allies lie to one another, allies switch sides at inopportune moments. Expectations of good intelligence abound, but when I was a commander I just wanted to know roughly how far the bad guys could reach (how much gas) and how quickly they could reinforce if we began to grind them up. These things are impossible to know for sure, so the best we have is a guess. It's the same all through history.

The whole Iraq issue boils down to this: is the freedom of individual Iraqis worth the blood and treasure of the US? I say yes. They are powerless to do it without our help, as are all oppressed people. We may yet fail, but I truly doubt it. We have a choice to fight now or fight later. A fight later will be here at home again if we relent.

[Tigermike 3,040]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards."

I actually posted nothing of the sort. I posted a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of our government.

Oh, don't be disingenuous, TT. I don't see you posting any articles about Democratic foulups, do I?

I've posted a few,

That must have been one of the days I missed.

[otterinbham 0]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards."

I actually posted nothing of the sort. I posted a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of our government.

Oh, don't be disingenuous, TT. I don't see you posting any articles about Democratic foulups, do I?

I've posted a few, but we are under a Republican administration which is unusually brazen about expanding its executive power. You're just upset because I caught you making stuff up on another thread that you are now ignoring. This post is about one of the top newstories of the day. You do realize this is a Republican administration, right? You're just trying to deflect with you're "geez they're really all the same" spiel.

That's because they ARE all the same. The entire point of my post is that you guys are really just arguing on behalf of your own gang of corrupt jackasses. I agree with George Wallace on next to nothing, but he did say one thing that's true: There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. I used to take issue with that. But the longer I live, the more I realize it's so.

And what thread are you referring to? Now, turning my attention to Tigerheat:

"Seeds of defeat, terrible planning, shortsighted strategy? Yes, I agree. I would also add poor generalship, lack of aggressive prosecution of the war, weak executive branch performance, and the fact that those we are fighting to free are stupid, backwards, and just not worth American blood and treasure. They will not help themselves at all. All of this blod, time, and effort being wasted over natural resources. Our money would be better spent helping those at home. Our troops could be home soon and the world would go right on spinning. Agree?"

I'm no isolationist. Far from it. But I spend considerable time dealing with military people in Huntsville. Captains, majors, and colonels, mostly representing intelligence and special forces. And when they're complaining about the total lack of a cassus belli in Iraq, not to mention the entire absence of strategy, then I have to listen.

The point of my previous post is that those exact same sentiments were held by many critics of the Civil War during the conflict. Lincoln had entire brigades of politicians and newspapermen calling for his head for incompetence, poor planning, misleading them about the war. The same thing occurred in World War I, Korea, the Aristook War, War of 1812, and many other conflicts the US has angaged in.

What would be an appropriate proximate cause for the invasion of Iraq? If you can't get past the "George Bush is a liar" meme then there can never be one under any circumstance. Clinton bombed the stew out of Iraq without consulting any of our allies nor the UN. He also believed that Saddam had NBC capabilities and a truly malevolent intent towards the free world.

Why do you care what military people think regarding a reason for the war? Are you advocating that they should have special responsibility in determing when the US is at war? We have civilian control of the military on purpose. They do what they are told to the best of their ability.

For those that have not served in the military, let me explain two things quickly. Special Forces should not impress you with their knowledge of anything. They are tough, smart soldiers, but they don't know anything more about the world than anyone else. They have a particular job to do, but that job has nothing to do with policy-making. As far as the intel folks....their job is to put together estimates of enemy capabilities and intentions. This is guess work with some science attached. Sometimes you get great estimates....other times you get the Chinese crossing of the Yalu River. The estimate you get is only a snapshot of what things looked like yesterday. People and equipment move all the time, allies lie to one another, allies switch sides at inopportune moments. Expectations of good intelligence abound, but when I was a commander I just wanted to know roughly how far the bad guys could reach (how much gas) and how quickly they could reinforce if we began to grind them up. These things are impossible to know for sure, so the best we have is a guess. It's the same all through history.

The whole Iraq issue boils down to this: is the freedom of individual Iraqis worth the blood and treasure of the US? I say yes. They are powerless to do it without our help, as are all oppressed people. We may yet fail, but I truly doubt it. We have a choice to fight now or fight later. A fight later will be here at home again if we relent.

See, that's what I love. Anybody who questions the need for a particular war, or takes exception to the incompetent prosecution of that war is automatically a defeatist, a dove, or both. I am neither. For example, I have no issue at all with our being in Afghanistan, even though I know it will be a protracted conflict. I also feel that we're making good progress in places such as the Philippine. The reality in Iraq is that we opened a front against Al Queda where none existed before.

The problem I have with Iraq is that it was tangential to the war on terror, it was undertaken on the flimsiest possible intelligence (which, as it turns out was disastrously wrong), it was undertaken without adequate manpower and resources, it was undertaken without any thought to what would happen after Baghdad fell, and it was undertaken without the slightest notion of the region's history. Heck, if you're such a student of military history, remember that the Allied Powers paid a great deal of attention to the occupation and rehabilitation of Japan and Germany after World War II. That's the difference between thinking strategically and thinking tactically.

[TexasTiger 12,963]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards."

I actually posted nothing of the sort. I posted a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of our government.

Oh, don't be disingenuous, TT. I don't see you posting any articles about Democratic foulups, do I?

I've posted a few,

That must have been one of the days I missed.

Those posts don't fit your predetermined framework so they don't register.

[TexasTiger 12,963]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards."

I actually posted nothing of the sort. I posted a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of our government.

Oh, don't be disingenuous, TT. I don't see you posting any articles about Democratic foulups, do I?

I've posted a few, but we are under a Republican administration which is unusually brazen about expanding its executive power. You're just upset because I caught you making stuff up on another thread that you are now ignoring. This post is about one of the top newstories of the day. You do realize this is a Republican administration, right? You're just trying to deflect with you're "geez they're really all the same" spiel.

That's because they ARE all the same. The entire point of my post is that you guys are really just arguing on behalf of your own gang of corrupt jackasses.

Again, my post that started this thread was a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of government. AFT took it in his standard direction of excusing behavior by squawking about the Dems. A reasonable person could have easily discussed the issue at hand. You could have, for example. But given your approach, we shouldn't even discuss this?

[otterinbham 0]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards."

I actually posted nothing of the sort. I posted a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of our government.

Oh, don't be disingenuous, TT. I don't see you posting any articles about Democratic foulups, do I?

I've posted a few, but we are under a Republican administration which is unusually brazen about expanding its executive power. You're just upset because I caught you making stuff up on another thread that you are now ignoring. This post is about one of the top newstories of the day. You do realize this is a Republican administration, right? You're just trying to deflect with you're "geez they're really all the same" spiel.

That's because they ARE all the same. The entire point of my post is that you guys are really just arguing on behalf of your own gang of corrupt jackasses.

Again, my post that started this thread was a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of government. AFT took it in his standard direction of excusing behavior by squawking about the Dems. A reasonable person could have easily discussed the issue at hand. You could have, for example. But given your approach, we shouldn't even discuss this?

Well, I think the title of your thread, "It's the lying, stupid," is what touched this off. Because, yes, the Bush administration is corrupt. I think a reasonable person would say that this is beyond question. The problem is that both sides are corrupt, and a reasonable person should despair of either political party offering a true alternative. I think advocates for both sides are simplistic dupes at best, and cynical at worst. The only reasonable thing for the American electorate to do at this point is chuck both parties out and vote for individuals.

[TexasTiger 12,963]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards."

I actually posted nothing of the sort. I posted a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of our government.

Oh, don't be disingenuous, TT. I don't see you posting any articles about Democratic foulups, do I?

I've posted a few, but we are under a Republican administration which is unusually brazen about expanding its executive power. You're just upset because I caught you making stuff up on another thread that you are now ignoring. This post is about one of the top newstories of the day. You do realize this is a Republican administration, right? You're just trying to deflect with you're "geez they're really all the same" spiel.

That's because they ARE all the same. The entire point of my post is that you guys are really just arguing on behalf of your own gang of corrupt jackasses.

Again, my post that started this thread was a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of government. AFT took it in his standard direction of excusing behavior by squawking about the Dems. A reasonable person could have easily discussed the issue at hand. You could have, for example. But given your approach, we shouldn't even discuss this?

Well, I think the title of your thread, "It's the lying, stupid," is what touched this off. Because, yes, the Bush administration is corrupt. I think a reasonable person would say that this is beyond question. The problem is that both sides are corrupt, and a reasonable person should despair of either political party offering a true alternative. I think advocates for both sides are simplistic dupes at best, and cynical at worst. The only reasonable thing for the American electorate to do at this point is chuck both parties out and vote for individuals.

The title was because while there were clearly political advantages being sought in these firings which may include inappropriate interference with the prosecutorial process, the most obvious law that is in question is lying to congress. As some conservative pundits have said, Gonzales could have just said, "Hey we're firing these guys because we can and if you don't like it, tough" and then defend that position, instead of lying about it. The coverup is usually the chief crime. Same with Libby-- the lying was the crime. It is the lying that has gotten this administration in the most legal trouble. It was the lying that got Henry Cisneros in trouble in the Clinton administration. It was the lying that got Clinton in trouble. He could have said, "I'm not going to answer questions about my personal life," and essentially lose the civil case he was facing-- Paula Jones was not a criminal case at the time. It is often the lying, stupid, and yet no one seems to learn that lesson.

[otterinbham 0]

"The title was because while there were clearly political advantages being sought in these firings which may include inappropriate interference with the prosecutorial process, the most obvious law that is in question is lying to congress. As some conservative pundits have said, Gonzales could have just said, "Hey we're firing these guys because we can and if you don't like it, tough" and then defend that position, instead of lying about it. The coverup is usually the chief crime. Same with Libby-- the lying was the crime. It is the lying that has gotten this administration in the most legal trouble. It was the lying that got Henry Cisneros in trouble in the Clinton administration. It was the lying that got Clinton in trouble. He could have said, "I'm not going to answer questions about my personal life," and essentially lose the civil case he was facing-- Paula Jones was not a criminal case at the time. It is often the lying, stupid, and yet no one seems to learn that lesson."

Ah. Now thank you for that clarification. I think reasonable people can agree on this. What I have a problem with is how willing people are to rationalize unethical behavior based on political expediency. So then it boils down to "Oh, yeah? Well, Adlai Stevenson told a whopper on the stump in 1956...." It is pointless, and means that, regardless of party affiliation, we're buying into the corruption of the system. It's kind of like people who defend Ann Coulter and Bill Maher. To them, the ends justify the means, so they don't realize what a corrosive effect they're having on the body politic.

[Tigermike 3,040]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards."

I actually posted nothing of the sort. I posted a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of our government.

Oh, don't be disingenuous, TT. I don't see you posting any articles about Democratic foulups, do I?

I've posted a few,

That must have been one of the days I missed.

Those posts don't fit your predetermined framework so they don't register.

Since you want to be that way, provide the links to prove your claim of posting any articles about Democratic foul-ups.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I'd like to see those myself. I have no recollection of anti-democrat postings by the Texas kool-aid drinker.

[TexasTiger 12,963]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards."

I actually posted nothing of the sort. I posted a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of our government.

Oh, don't be disingenuous, TT. I don't see you posting any articles about Democratic foulups, do I?

I've posted a few,

That must have been one of the days I missed.

Those posts don't fit your predetermined framework so they don't register.

Since you want to be that way, provide the links to prove your claim of posting any articles about Democratic foul-ups.

Do your own research since you don't pay attention at the time. I frankly don't care if you believe it or not. Obviously, the vast majority of my posts are about Republican policies/actions I take issue with. We have a Republican administration, and until recently, the Republicans controlled all the levers of power. But even throughout the time the government was run totally by Republicans, you and your drone buddy TIS, saw fit to post virtually nothing but anti-democrat screeds about a party that had no real power. You opposed virtually all attempts at oversight and favored a blank check for this administration. For you to criticize anyone for lacking balance in their posting is hilarious, especially on a forum dominated by people with views similar to yours to begin with.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I'm not the one that shot my mouth off and told everyone I had done something that everyone that reads this forum knows isn't true.

[TexasTiger 12,963]

I'm not the one that shot my mouth off and told everyone I had done something that everyone that reads this forum knows isn't true.

Most folks of your ilk don't read that well and aren't great arbiters of what is true.