All about life, liberty and the pursuit of hopeiness.
| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
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.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
43 Responses to “The Cowboy is back”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Bring it on…
F.I.N.A.L.L.Y!!!
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.
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
We’ll see…
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.
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!
…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…
Maybe we can have a hearing into how Schumer’s office illegally obtains credit reports of political opponents.
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!
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.
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……
Wizbang blog has this text:
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.
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
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???
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.
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.
Executive Priveledge 101 (for the negligent lefties)
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.
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.
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…
Dick Morris stance on the issue.
He’s hardly a partisan. I actually consider him left leaning except for the war on terror.
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.
Brilliant article by Morris. Seems to blow all the arguments of the dems right out of the water!!
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:
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.
Darn…posted the above to the wrong thread. Sorry, ST.
Aargggh…no I didn’t either.
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?
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.
Yeah, like rushing back to the bong room.
Facts are persuasive Tommy…. not negligence and inaccurate speculation….
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.
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.
Hmmm. Let’s not forget Sndy Burglar. What was in those documents he stole?
A little off track, but I’d still like to know.
I love it:
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?
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
Hmmm. Let’s not forget Sndy Burglar. What was in those documents he stole?
Waterboard Berger!!!