The Cowboy is back

Bush to Democrats: take this offer on Attorneygate or shove it.

Mr. President, your supporters have been starving for this type of line-in-sand attitude from you for months. Good to see ya back

Wed AM Update: Patterico takes a look at Senator Pat Leahy’s view on executive privilege while in the Senate during the Clinton administration versus his view now. Smack.

43 Responses to "The Cowboy is back"

CZ says:

March 21, 2007 at 12:09 am
Baklava says:

March 21, 2007 at 12:34 am

Bring it on…
forest hunter says:

March 21, 2007 at 12:46 am

F.I.N.A.L.L.Y!!!
mikem says:

March 21, 2007 at 12:57 am

Yeah, it’s welcome. But there are dozens of other issues, including illegal immigration, that he will fall back asleep on.
Not a happy camper.
Daniel DiRito says:

March 21, 2007 at 1:18 am

See a satirical visual lampooning the Bush administration’s version of “Justice Is Served”…here:

LINK

Daniel, in the future, please submit trackbacks to posts rather than posting their link in the comments. Thanks. –ST
186k Per Second » Bush Says NO - Chuck Shumer and Harry Reid Found Weeping Under Desks says:

March 21, 2007 at 3:29 am

[…] Sister Toldjah The Cowboy is back. […]
camojack says:

March 21, 2007 at 3:56 am

We’ll see…
steveegg says:

March 21, 2007 at 7:25 am

Months? More like years.

Of course, I do have 3:03 pm EDT today as the time the leak from a “high-ranking White House official” saying that the WH will deal to cave.
Tom TB says:

March 21, 2007 at 8:03 am

There are loony-tunes that hated Bush before he was elected the first time; wait a minute, they still don’t think he was elected! Being hated can be fun. Once you know that some folks will never ever change their opinion of you, just goof on them!
Tango says:

March 21, 2007 at 8:07 am

…I watched Dubya’s press conference yesterday and noted his appearance. He looked old and tired, almost as if he’d been “worked over.” The exasperation in his voice was obvious. Here he was yet again, dodging the slings and arrows of another media inspired non-story.

For a least the last couple of years Bush has had to contend with congressional demi-Gods seeking power to which they’re not constitutionally entitled. He’s gotten precious little help from his own party leadership; last November’s sorry election results are the bitter fruits of that lack of GOP vision.
The president will spend his remaining 21 months in office seeking to avoid another 9/11 on our own soil. The liklihood of his being able to advance any other meaningful legislation on behalf of the nation is slim, given the leadership being exhibited by Mme Pelosi and Pinky Reid. Rest assured that the enemies of freedom are watching the American circus with great interest…
tommy in nyc says:

March 21, 2007 at 8:08 am

Who do the heck do you think you are kidding ST. at a minimum the claims of “exexutive privilage” apply to national security issues not poltical hatchet jobs against members of your own political party. Besides the fact that first off the 43 Admin is politicizing the DOJ. Not real smart politics in my book. Supeonas are coming his way. And please if they have nothing to hide than what’s the problem with testifying under oath? Can’t wait till’ either the Admin backs down or is forced to back down under threat from the SCOTUS. Democracy rocks and after 6 years of tyranny it is pleasant to see again!!!! Later days girl never forget I wish you success personally……………not politically
vatar says:

March 21, 2007 at 9:04 am

Maybe we can have a hearing into how Schumer’s office illegally obtains credit reports of political opponents.
benning says:

March 21, 2007 at 10:02 am

That attitude should have surfaced about a month into his Presidency. Now, it’s just too damned little and too damned late.

I wonder if the electorate will see what the Dems have wrought with their non-stop, phony ‘investigations’? Prolly not, but we can hope. And then perhaps the Dems will be out on their ears come November 2008!
Baklava says:

March 21, 2007 at 10:51 am

Tommy INCORRECTLY stated, “at a minimum the claims of “exexutive privilage” apply to national security issues”

As we all know the lack of your credentials…. at least link to us some “expert” who believes this erroneous garbage that you wrote with negligence. If you can find ONE person that’d be helpful to figure out how you get your cluelessness.
forest hunter says:

March 21, 2007 at 11:06 am

Bak, you’re typing to a WOB. Clarity is more often defined by weight and color and nearly nothing to do with realitee tee tee eee ee e……
Baklava says:

March 21, 2007 at 11:12 am

Wizbang blog has this text:

Update: There are several in the comments section parroting the Dem talking point that I have been seeing on television, “If there is nothing to hide, then why not have them testify under oath in public?” That is an incredibly stupid question to ask so soon after the LIbby trial and the Plame testimony. The White House appears to have learned from the LIbby example that if enough administration officials are questioned long enough under oath, there are likely to be failings in memory that could result in a perjury charge. We just spent a considerable amount of time and money to prosecute a guy the jury even said should be pardoned.

As for the Plame hearing, if anyone watched it they saw not much questioning of witnesses like Victoria Toensing, but rather grandstanding by congressmen that talked on and on and then asked questions only to interrupt before Toensing could answer. It was a farce and nothing more than an excuse for congressmen to pontificate before television cameras. That is why the White House would not want to have Karl Rove dragged before a bunch of preening congressmen and women playing to the television cameras, even if there is “nothing to hide.”
Leslie says:

March 21, 2007 at 11:38 am

You may be quite sure there will be a compromise.

These “constitutional clashes” always do end in compromise, because neither the executive nor the legislative branch is at all anxious to allow the Supreme Court to rule conclusively on the extent of “Executive Privilege”–if it exists at all.
tommy in nyc says:

March 21, 2007 at 11:44 am

Try WATERGATE for starters Bak when yet another G.O.P. C-in-C try to blow smoke up the American people’s tailpipe. Also while I don’t have the links I am fairly certain that staffers in Clinton’s WH testified under oath as requeasted by this nation’s DEMOCRATICALLY elected Congress. You crack about about Libby is funny because youse O.P.’ers when you had supeona power wastwed 50 million bucks looking into Clinton’s sex life. And the guy who led to charge was screwing around on his own old lady. Edited. -ST. Bottom line is 43 fired competant civil service employees because they were not partisan in enforcing the law and then you have the balls to claim that us on the left are to ones playing games with partinship. Get a clue homeboy
Baklava says:

March 21, 2007 at 12:36 pm

You are confused Tommy.

And negligently WRONG again. Clinton asserted the separation of powers privledges also. Why do you ‘like to be negligent?

Why did I say you are confused?

Because Watergate was a criminal matter. Laws were broken.

For clarity Tommy you need to know that the President can always assert executive privelidge to keep people who are advising him from having to testify. Clinton did it and many presidents have done it.

It’s SIMILAR to somebody making your lawyer (your advisor) have to testify. It is UNLAWFUL to make somebody that you are paying for their advice have to testify. The attorny client priviledge can ONLY be denied as a BDS reaction by you Tommy because I know you know it exists for others…. just not Bush.

Your confusion really shows your need to do research and stop being negligent. It’s ok to have ‘feelings’ but for them to be so not based in factual basis and then repeated after corrected brings me to the conclusion that you have no desire to not be negligent.

Tommy was EGREGIOUSLY incorrect with the statement, “Bottom line is 43 fired competant civil service employees”

No. The exact opposite. The attorneys that resigned serve the president and are NOT “civil service employees”.

As you stated, “Get a clue”.

Can you tell us your therapists name so that we can question her/him endlessly against your permission???
NC Cop says:

March 21, 2007 at 1:01 pm

You are confused Tommy.

And yet, who among us is surprised?

Tommy exemplifies the democrats today. First, the Plame fairy tale, now the firings of attorneys that was well within the President’s power.

Hey Tommy, Clinton fired all 92 of the attorneys after he took over. Including the ones that were investigating Clinton’s illegal whitewater dealings.

Where was your concern for democracy then?

You are such a hypocrite it isn’t even funny anymore. And please don’t talk about wasting money. The democrats wasted $2 million and two years trying to dig up skeletons in Bush’s closet and they found none. Patrick Fitzgerald knew exactly who the leak was and still continued with the investigation. Why? If it was illegal to do so why wasn’t Armitage charged with a crime after admitting he was the one who leaked the information?

Take a break from your bong hits, dude, and open a book. I beg of you.
The Anchoress » Yeehaw, today’s round-up! says:

March 21, 2007 at 1:36 pm

[…] And we’ll start by noting that Sister Toldjah is sayin’ The Cowboy is Back. That would be Dubya, who has apparently roused himself into sufficient anger to tell the congress that no, they may not subvert the constitution by infringing upon the separations of power and inserting themselves into the executive branch. As Ed Morrissey points out, Bush really didn’t have any other option to play. […]
PCD says:

March 21, 2007 at 1:46 pm

NC Cop, with 1/3 of DC illiterate under years of the NEA and Democrat administrations (Including Marion Berry), Tommy is a warning flag that NYC could be as badly educated or worse. I think Chicago, LA, NO, Milwaukee, Detroit,… are all in the same basket. Too long under the heel of the Democrat plantation machine.
Baklava says:

March 21, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Executive Priveledge 101 (for the negligent lefties)
G-Monster says:

March 21, 2007 at 2:09 pm

Show Trials….I think that’s a perfect word. The dems have been having show trials for the last couple of years.

Fred Barnes stated that the dems aren’t interested in the truth, but are out to undermine/weaken this administration at any cost.

I think Fred Barnes is right, and I don’t think this is healthy for our country.
tommy in nyc says:

March 21, 2007 at 2:20 pm

NC COP Reagan fired all of Carter’s USA’s when he took office in 81 and there is nothing wrong with what Reagan or Clinton did. What 43 and Rove did is much more sinister. First Mcnulty went to Congress and told our elected Reps that these folks were canned because of poor performence. That as is now obvious was an outright lie and far worse IMHO they were let go because they refused to play ball with 43 Admin political desires and even tough they were REPUBLICANS they got the boot. Now also NC COP 50 millions bucks spend over a sex act vs. 2 million for blantantly lying to drag this nation into warfare.Which one of these scenarios is more important in your eyes. Pcd takes the cake however…………since I don’t into your very misguided political views than I must be illerate sad if you ask me.
Baklava says:

March 21, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Tommy wrote, “What 43 and Rove did is much more sinister.”

What you as a negligent partisan hack who chooses to be uninformed is very sinister…

Tommy wrote, “That as is now obvious was an outright lie”

Tommy even when corrected will continue asserting things that aren’t fact so I consider that an outright lie.

I’d rather be illiterate than considered a liar…
Baklava says:

March 21, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Dick Morris stance on the issue.

He’s hardly a partisan. I actually consider him left leaning except for the war on terror.
NC Cop says:

March 21, 2007 at 2:53 pm

2 million for blantantly lying to drag this nation into warfare.

First, that’s not what that investigation was about. It seems that no matter what people like you argue, you will always tie it to Iraq. Second, you seemed to have missed the point, again, that the investigation was not necessary. Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was before the investigation began, so I ask you again, why did the investigation take place? Why wasn’t Armitage charged with a crime?

As far as the “Bush lied” mantra. It is really worn, tommy. If you believe Bush lied then you must believe that Clinton and half of his staff lied while he was in office. Not that Clinton lying is anything knew, but everyone seems to conveniently forget the fact that Clinton was behind this war when it started.

Your arguments are infantile and you cannot seem to back up any of your claims with any facts or links.

Your truly are a democrat.
NC Cop says:

March 21, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Brilliant article by Morris. Seems to blow all the arguments of the dems right out of the water!!
Great White Rat says:

March 21, 2007 at 3:19 pm

From the crack house in Queens, tommy babbles mindlessly on:

Reagan fired all of Carter’s USA’s when he took office in 81 and there is nothing wrong with what Reagan or Clinton did.

That’s an outright lie, tommy. Reagan didn’t fire any of the US Attorneys when he took office. He let them complete their terms. And lest you think there’s anything partisan here, Jimmy Carter did exactly the same thing. Then again, neither Reagan nor Carter had any illegal activities hounding them that they wished to cover up.

Clinton, on the other hand, fired all the US Attorneys. He definitely wanted to get rid of two – the one in Little Rock who was looking into his illegal land deals and the one in DC who was less than a month away from indicting Clinton’s crony Rostenkowski.

Did Clinton have the right to do this? Yes, although it’s highly unethical. But the words “Clinton” and “unethical” are basically synonyms.

Here’s the rationale Clinton used for his firings:

Last Tuesday, after being on the job only 11 days, Attorney General Janet Reno had the Justice Department moving and shaking. She requested the prompt resignation of all 93 U.S. Attorneys around the country “to build a team” that represents “my views” and those of the President..

Time Magazine, 4/5/93

OK, so each administration wants US Attorneys to focus on certain criminal areas. The Clintons, for example, wanted the DOJ to concentrate on things like harrassing Microsoft. If I were in the Oval Office, I’d be wanting them to give priority to things like vote fraud and illegal immigration. It’s the right of the President to remove any US Attorneys who don’t get with the program. And there’s nothing illegal about any of that.

In this case, the AG did an evaluation of all the US Attorneys to see who was doing their job well and meeting their objectives. Much like a lot of businesses do every year. Based on that, eight of them were fired. Big deal.

So here’s the question, tommy. Do you have any link to anything that shows the fired US Attorneys were removed because they were looking into any criminal activity of the President or any of his associates? If you do, produce it. If not, then you have nothing.

It’s put up or shut up time, tommy. Let’s see if you have anything at all except partisan hackery. Based on your past track record, I doubt it.
Great White Rat says:

March 21, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Darn…posted the above to the wrong thread. Sorry, ST.
Great White Rat says:

March 21, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Aargggh…no I didn’t either.
Great White Rat says:

March 21, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Here’s the really scary part. You can understand why tommy’s commentary is always disjoined and ill-informed. He’s been very open about his drug problems, so you can have a bit of sympathy and almost cut him a bit of slack when he goes off the deep end. But he so often sounds exactly like, say, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or (fill in the name of the Dem presidential hopeful here). What’s their excuse?
tommy in nyc says:

March 21, 2007 at 3:34 pm

You know I have better stuff to do than listen to all this BS. The only reason these 8 were fired was because they didn’t do what the 43 Admin’s political hacks wanted done. That’s what youse guys just keep glossing over and to top it off Mcnulty,Gonzo,Rove,etc,etc were simply not trutyhful when asked by Congress why they were let go.Period. And if you’re going to cry about executive priviledge why did the 43 Admin release over 3000 pages of e-mails? Listen you can live in your delusional reality and what head shaking is that youse folks actually believe the garbage that comes out of these slimy G.O.P’s hack’S mouths. Bak for crying out loud Dick Morris!!!!!!! Talk to youse later as in much.
Sister Toldjah says:

March 21, 2007 at 3:41 pm

You know I have better stuff to do than listen to all this BS.

Yeah, like rushing back to the bong room.
Baklava says:

March 21, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Facts are persuasive Tommy…. not negligence and inaccurate speculation….
Baklava says:

March 21, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Firing attorney’s for political reasons. Quite the precedent. This article talks about FDR, and Harry Truman and Missouri Democrat political machine in the 1930’s.

While the federal investigation into Pendergast was still ongoing, Truman, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1934, tried to get Milligan dismissed. In 1938, he attempted to block Milligan’s reappointment as U.S. Attorney even though he was a Roosevelt appointee with the support of Missouri’s other Democratic senator, Bennett “Champ” Clark.

On February 15, 1938, Truman personally filibustered Milligan’s reconfirmation by the Senate, calling him incompetent, immoral and guilty of using “Hitler-Stalin tactics.” Time magazine called Truman’s speech “one of the bitterestâ€¦ever heard on the Senate floor.”

Despite Truman’s efforts, Milligan was endorsed by the Senate and went on to bring down his close friend and mentor, Pendergast. But Truman never forgot what he had done. Within days of becoming president in 1945, after the death of Roosevelt, one of Truman’s first acts was to fire Milligan. When Attorney General Francis Biddle protested Truman’s action, he fired Biddle, too.

In other ways as well, Democratic presidents have long used federal law enforcement agencies for political purposes. Roosevelt often had his political enemies audited by the Internal Revenue Service. He also used the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate and tap the phones of journalists and newspaper publishers who opposed his policies.

In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and President Lyndon Johnson also used the FBI and IRS to investigate and harass their political opponents. As is well known, they bugged Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s phones and hotel rooms just to gain political intelligence—falsely justifying their actions on the grounds that King was in league with the Communists.

The point of this history lesson is not to excuse or justify anything Bush and Gonzales may have done, which seems mainly stupid rather than malicious, but to suggest that Democrats would be wise not to push their protests too far. Their own presidents have done far worse with less justification. That’s a fact.
Great White Rat says:

March 21, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Good point, Bak. Kind of keeps things in perspective, doesn’t it?

Let’s not forget Clinton illegally stealing FBI files of his opponents, and using the IRS to go after conservative leaders and organizations. He even used the IRS to go after Billy Dale and the White House Travel Office personnel, and all they ever did was happen to be in the way when he wanted to give payoffs and patronage to a crony.
G-Monster says:

March 21, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Hmmm. Let’s not forget Sndy Burglar. What was in those documents he stole?
G-Monster says:

March 21, 2007 at 5:26 pm

A little off track, but I’d still like to know.
Lorica says:

March 21, 2007 at 8:08 pm

I love it:

You know I have better stuff to do than listen to all this BS.

Our reasoning is BS, but Tommy’s is gospel truth.

Why is it that when a lib is presented with the facts they just run and hide?

Talk to youse later as in much.

Honestly tho, you all have run off so many libs, logically, that I am surprised that any show up anymore. Well you know what P.T. Barnum said….. – Lorica
Severian says:

March 21, 2007 at 9:10 pm

Hmmm. Let’s not forget Sndy Burglar. What was in those documents he stole?

Waterboard Berger!!!
Hang Right Politics says:

March 22, 2007 at 12:56 am

It’s About Time the White House Grew A Pair

Headline from the Drudge Report: BUSH VOWS TO BLOCK SUBPOENAS; WARNS DEMS, NO ‘SHOW TRIALS’
WASHINGTON (AP) – A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prose…

Comments are closed.