Bush administration caught lying again

[bevin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070315/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gonzales_prosecutors

Quote:

E-mails between the Justice Department and the White House, released Tuesday, contradicted the administration's earlier contention that Bush's aides had only limited involvement in the firings

/Bevin

[Neil D]

Hey Bevin,

There are times when I just want to revamp the election process and insist that we move forward 2 years and start the election process NOW...This guy is gonna leave our country in political sludge that will affect us for the next couple of decades. With a economic debt, and conservative social issues and the graft and corruption, the american people have got to see how conservativism really bogs down the American process...not only bogs it down, but sends it back 40 years...

[David Koot]

Yeah but . . . they said kinda the same things after forty years of Democratic rule on the Hill. I mean, do I really have to bring up specifics??? Pot calling the kettle black.

[Dr. Shane]

I understand immigrants and those from other countries being ignorant of American history. Those of us born and educated here in the US should have a better grasp of our history and be able to judge current events in its perspective.

[Bravus]

But David's not an immigrant...?

(OK, I'm just funnin' with ya)

[bevin]

My many American-born and actively political lunch companions usually point to Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon as the turning point in American politics.

Before him, it was tacitly assumed and tolerated that presidents were indeed basically dishonest.

After him, we have been trying to achieve reasonable levels of honesty in government.

The Bush administration is a return to the dark ages.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

But David's not an immigrant...?

Just for your information, Bravus, U.S. political history is a special interest of mine (particularly the Federalist and early Republican years, prior to the demise of reputable American politics which accompanied the Jacksonian revolution.) I submit that G. Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were reputable, essentially honest men (and, I should add, John Q. Adams). Things went rapidly, horribly downhill after that. Lincoln was not honest. Teddy Roosevelt didn't do so badly, nor did Wilson. Hoover, though exercising poor judgment, was essential a forthright administrator. As for FDR? No comment. Harry Truman? I wouldn't call him dishonest, other than being a party hack. Eisenhower had West Point morals and integrity drilled into him. Kennedy is another story, and as for LBJ, out of respect for the deceased, I will say no more . . . Nixon honest? No comment. Ford? Not bad. Carter? Mixed bag. Reagan? Yikes!!!! Bush Sr.? A gentleman of the old school. Slick Willie and his wife, Hillary, the acting president? A fitting object of Bevin's comment about a return to the dark ages. As for W, I believe he is basically honest, but that some who have been close to him may have been less than honest.

D

[Dr. Shane]

Not sure I can consider Wilson honest. Our whole reason for getting into WW1 and choosing Brittan's side was based on a lie and a violation of our policy of being neutral.

Vietnam and television news changed the way politics has been covered by the media. Of course President Nixon was President during the end of that war.

Compared to many other countries in the world, the US has reasonable levels of honesty in government.

I do not believe President Bush to be some kind of saint that never tells a lie, covets, hates or does something he believes is wrong. But how many of us can claim such status for ourselves? I do believe he is as honest as most active, evangelical Christians and perhaps even a little more.

[Bravus]

Thanks, David K, that's hugely informative and interesting to me, thank you! (And, honest, I was kidding!)

We seem to have strayed a bit in this thread. The topic is not 'is Bush a liar' or (heaven help us) 'was Clinton a liar'. It is 'did they lie about the firing of the prosecutors'. And I think it's pretty clear that they did.

[Dr. Shane]

I believe the Clinton Administration did the same thing and... of course, they were within their right to do so. Prosecutors can be fired by any administration that disagrees with them; it is a political position.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

You will find an honest conscientious politician when

[Bravus]

Clinton did it at the beginning of his term, as most recent presidents have. Bush did it once at the beginning, but again now 6 years in, and specifically targetted people like the attorney who pursued the Duke Cunningham case to conviction.

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_video=83707

And, as you've said a number of times about Clinton, Shane - it's not the original worng, it's the cover-up that gets ya. It's pretty clear that Gonzales and Tony Snow, minimum, have said things publicly and on the record about this that have later been shown to be untrue.

[bevin]

Quote:

it's the cover-up that gets ya.

That was really what hosed Nixon too.

If firing the attorneys was "business as normal" then why did they lie about it?

Because they were being fired for not doing the politically motivated work that Rove et al wanted them to do! Either they were pushing anti-Republican cases or not pushing anti-Democratic cases.

The one thing the White House is not supposed to do is lie to Congress about matters of government. Clinton was not charged with this - he was charged with lying about personal moral stuff.

The Bush Administration has been repeatedly caught lying to Congress.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Anyone that thinks this administration is anymore dishonest than previous administrations lacks a historical perspective of American politics. This specific issue is simply making a mountain out of a mole hill. It is yawning news. The kind we get on slow news days.

[lazarus]

The big issue here not that the prosecutors were fired but it was that thy were fired because they were not POLITICALLY doing the bidding of the administration. At least two were fired because of the lack of probing or too much probing eg Lam and Duke Cunningham. There something called obstruction of justice isn't there?

[bevin]

Quote:

There something called obstruction of justice isn't there?

Yes. It is a specialty of Rove and Cheney and Gonzales - they think it is a virtue.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

From that well-known leftie rag the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/opinion/16fri1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Dr. Shane]

OK, if I am wrong, someone big will go down because of this. If I am right, and this is just a mountain being made out of a mole hill, it will be forgotten as soon as a real story comes along for the media to obsess over.

[there buster]

this place reads like the Onion.

"Bush orders breakfast. NYT worries about abuse of executive power."

[Bravus]

Because firing prosecuting attorneys because they are independent rather than being party apparatchiks is exactly like ordering breakfast.

[there buster]

ROFLOL. YOu've got it! Bizarre distortion, missing the point entirely, and with a straight face, too. Well done! Look out Onion!

[Bravus]

[David Koot]

firing prosecuting attorneys because they are independent rather than being party apparatchiks

Such a thing is absolutely disgraceful. Tragically, it is too often true. But, I still cling to the hope that somewhere in the world, things are done better. How about it, Bravus? Surely this wouldn't happen in Oz, correct? Lazarus, how about UK? The Brits are watchdogs about this kind of abuse, aren't they?

[jasd]

QR frame:

Obstruction of FBI probe: read - Jefferson, Demo, Louisiana.

Did or did not the Dems throw a hissy-fit?

Oh, Attention Deficit Disorder.

The assistant attorneys serve at the will of POTUS. Fire them if they stink of cheap cologne, for cryin’ out loud - or for any other piddlin' reason. At the pleasure... As for lying…

cryin’ out loud.

Please, if one’s a politico – and considering the mess this country’s in…

LIE to me, please, please, please, LIE to me.

[David Koot]

LOLOLOL. Indeed, Jasd, good one. And did they EVER through a hissy fit! I seem to recall Mr. Jefferson saying something like, 'Let Mr. Marshall enforce his subpoena.' Nothing new under the sun.