Post #278,407
3/15/07 10:18:21 PM
|
Nope...
sources include : [link|http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n11_v27/ai_18540903| The first point - one often lost in the scandal's serpentine turns - is that the seven Travel Office employees could have been fired at any time for almost any nondiscriminatory reason. As at-will employees without contracts, they served solely at the pleasure of the president. ]
and
[link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies#Travel_office_firings|Supporters said that the employees in question were officially political appointees (although they had served under Presidents of both parties) who served "at the President's pleasure" and could be fired or reassigned at any time.]
|
Post #278,408
3/15/07 10:28:49 PM
|
Point missed
Bill could fire them. Hillary could not.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,410
3/15/07 10:42:02 PM
|
I don't think so.
Certainly Hillary^HRove couldn't fire them. Arguments about Hillary's^HRove's involvement (or their misleading of Congress) in the firing are probably pointless and shouldn't be made (the buck stops where)?
The real issue (IMO) regarding the Clinton's firing was the use of the FBI and smear campaign that was started around the employees. Lucky for us, we know that's not happening in this case.
|
Post #278,429
3/16/07 8:55:38 AM
|
bingo
"The real issue (IMO) regarding the Clinton's firing was the use of the FBI and smear campaign that was started around the employees" indicates someone too petty to be president.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #278,432
3/16/07 10:32:15 AM
|
Hillary did it and had no authority
Karl consulted...which is part of his job
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,435
3/16/07 11:14:31 AM
|
Then who let her?
If some schmoe off the street came in to my office and told me I was fired, I'd still come in the next day, and I'd expect to get paid on the next Friday. As far as I'm concerned, "fired" means they revoke my building access card and stop paying me. If I can still get in and I still get a paycheck, [link|http://www.lostandfrowned.com/milton.gif|I'm not fired].
Unless Hillary had access to the security and accounting systems, which I doubt, then she would have to have told someone else to do these things. If she didn't have the authority to tell them that, then they shouldn't have listened to her.
I'm not taking a position, I'm looking for information. If she didn't have the authority to fire anybody, what did she actually do? Did she ask someone who had the authority to do it, and they did?
It doesn't make sense to me to say that she "had no authority" to fire someone.
===
Kip Hawley is still an idiot.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #278,437
3/16/07 11:32:06 AM
|
Thats why they call it TravelGate.
She gave the order and it was followed. Even her husband, the Pres...who could have simply said "I asked it to be done"...didn't.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,618
3/17/07 9:10:44 PM
|
And Rove gave the order, and it was followed.
Difference? (I mean, besides the obvious that Rove is a Republican, which as we all know, changes everything...)
jb4
"It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment."
— George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
|
Post #278,621
3/17/07 9:44:17 PM
|
No, he didn't. And there's sworn testimony that >she< did.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,624
3/17/07 9:48:46 PM
|
Which, of course, they're frantically backpeddaling on.
C'mon, BeeP, even you see that the analog fits too well. Back off, and go fight the fight on an issue you have better traction with, like whether the AG's firings were legal....
jb4
"It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment."
— George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
|
Post #278,625
3/17/07 9:51:19 PM
|
Who is backpedaling on what.
Clarity helps.
There's no question the firings were legal. I'm enjoying the press frenzy (and associated lemming behavior) now.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,701
3/18/07 1:05:03 PM
|
You're forgetting the other part of the analogy ....
ultimately, nothing ever came out of travelgate either.
|
Post #278,626
3/17/07 9:53:35 PM
|
Sworn testimony from this crowd
I chuckle.
-----------------------------------------
Draft Clark [link|http://draftwesleyclark.com/|now].
|
Post #278,628
3/17/07 10:24:53 PM
|
Look it up yourself if you must
this is a tangent anyway in saying "this is just like that".
It isn't.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,658
3/18/07 7:48:21 AM
|
Missed point
Their governing philosophy is that the president and his team are not constrained by law. Lying in sworn testimony is no biggy to them. Hell, lying seems to be their first instinct even when they don't need to. Witness the "fired for performance reasons" canard.
I'm going to make one last attempt to get through to you on this. Why. The scandal revolves around the question of why. Not the act itself but the reasons for it. You keep focusing on minutiae instead of the big picture. This admin fired sitting AGs for what appears* to be nefarious, partisan reasons. They have managed to bring [link|http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002785.php|doubt] on the independence of the AGs that were not fired and on their cases.
There is a phrase that describes what all the concern is about. I notice this phrase's meaning is never addressed by you except to discount it with, "but it was legal".
That phrase is "abuse of power".
*In my opinion, the appearance matches the reality so well that it's a foregone conclusion.
-----------------------------------------
Draft Clark [link|http://draftwesleyclark.com/|now].
|
Post #278,676
3/18/07 11:18:10 AM
|
Make me laugh
Washington is all about abuse of power. If you let them, they will do it. That is not unique to this administration.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,679
3/18/07 11:23:16 AM
|
Then why do you get upset when they get called on it?
|
Post #278,682
3/18/07 11:27:45 AM
|
Huh?
Who's upset? What they did was legal but it creates a scandal that takes time away from real news and will take time away from real governing.
While the House and Senate spend millions investigating this they could be passing healthcare legislation, discussing lowering debt, passing REAL resolutions about the war..etc.
But no...its Bush and ROVE....ROVE OF ALL PEOPLE...THE ANTICHRIST HIMSELF. When we're done having hearings about Plame (last years news)...we'll start with this...and get no governing done at all.
Upset? Not at all. Pessimists are NEVER disappointed.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,687
3/18/07 11:38:31 AM
|
real governing
If the result of this scandal is that we spend more time talking about one thing that congress should do - spend more time reading and understanding the legislation they pass - and talking about the importance of keeping politics out of the prosecution of our laws, would you consider that a waste of time?
Seamus
|
Post #278,689
3/18/07 11:41:47 AM
|
Pessimist, remember?
They won't discuss that at all. They'll lay blame at the feet of Gonzales, force him to be replaced...have the press say that it was really Rove and that Gonzales took the fall for him...and then they'll find a new scandal to have hearings on.
Not one mention of their complicity by passing stupid laws will be heard. Ever.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,702
3/18/07 1:07:52 PM
|
What kind of pessimist?
A complete and total pessimist?
When it comes to politicians, I believe the only thing that affects their behavior is if they believe there will be negative consequences to their actions.
Seamus
|
Post #278,703
3/18/07 1:11:57 PM
|
Like what?
The kind that gets them kicked out of politics and then signed to other organizations or speaking tours that net them 5 to 10 times their earnings as politicians?
Wish I could face that kind of "punishment".
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,690
3/18/07 11:52:32 AM
3/21/07 12:23:42 AM
|
Wouldn't be surprised if that provision was added in conf.
It's quite common, or was under the Republicans, for provisions to be added to bills in the [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress_Conference_committee|Conference Committee] that resolves difference between House and Senate bills. The members of that committee are appointed by the leadership and they have a lot of leeway in adding things - things that aren't even in either version of the bills. As such, it wouldn't surprise me if it was added there - where most of the congressmen and senators wouldn't have seen it.
That's one reason why the leadership is so important even if they don't have a large enough majority to push through their agenda directly. They still have a big impact on shaping the legislation, and it's a big part of the reason why the Republicans were able to change so many things even though their majority was small.
I haven't taken the time to investigate the history of this particular bill, so I could be wrong. But in any event, I wouldn't expect that the people voting on the bills will read them more closely as a result of this. I would hope that they would encourage their staffs to watch the legislation more carefully and alert them when things like this appear.
[edit:] I've looked at the legislation some more. The language in question [link|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c109SaeWhQ:e177847:|Section 502] in the final bill is not present in the [link|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109SaeWhQ::|House version] (where there is no Title V section at all), nor in the [link|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:5:./temp/~c109SaeWhQ::|Senate version]. It seems clear the language for all of the Title V provisions, including Section 502, were added in the Conference Committee. It's really not surprising that few knew what was in the bill when it came up for the final passage vote.
I've seen mention of the name of someone who pushed for the 502 provision, but haven't seen anything official in my scanning of Thomas at the Library of Congress site.
Note that if these links don't work for you (due to my search timing out), a search for "HR 3199" for the 109th Congress [link|http://thomas.loc.gov/home/multicongress/multicongress.html|here] will give the various versions of the bill. H.R.3199.ENR is the final version (you may need to search for it separately).
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #278,988
3/21/07 12:40:12 AM
|
Wow, you're a genius!
Or maybe you're just reasonably intelligent, and have seen this pattern so often that it's beyond "unsurprising" right into the "expected" category.
Well, I guess you could still be a genius. But predicting this probably doesn't count as evidence. It was fairly obvious, after all.
===
Kip Hawley is still an idiot.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #278,989
3/21/07 12:43:56 AM
|
You can call me "Mr. Obvious" if you'd like.
|
Post #279,001
3/21/07 6:12:38 AM
|
ICLRPD (new thread)
Created as new thread #279000 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=279000|ICLRPD]
-----------------------------------------
Draft Clark [link|http://draftwesleyclark.com/|now].
|
Post #278,441
3/16/07 11:56:35 AM
|
pro/con link
[link|http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/travelgate.HTM|http://www.youdebate...ES/travelgate.HTM]
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #278,444
3/16/07 12:38:16 PM
|
If that page is basically accurate ...
Then it sounds like Hillary didn't do anything illegal. She had no authority to fire anyone, and she didn't. That page is clearly written to suggest she did something "wrong", but that's different from "illegal". The parallel with the current Justice firings is ... amusing.
===
Kip Hawley is still an idiot.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #278,455
3/16/07 1:49:58 PM
|
Re: Hillary did it and had no authority
Karl did more than consult, read the emails and read between the lines and you should see that Karl wanted the firings and they happened.
I didn't like what Hillary did, but to compare travelgate to the firings of the attorneys is unjustified.
If the white house hadn't got the section into the patriot 2 act, I doubt they would have tried this stunt. Or if they did, the people they nominated to replace the attorneys would have been different.
Seamus
|
Post #278,458
3/16/07 2:05:15 PM
|
What emails are you talking about?
The "latest" (not even from Rove) On Jan. 6, 2005, an assistant White House counsel forwarded an e-mail with the subject line "Question from Karl Rove" to Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff at the Justice Department. The e-mail noted that earlier that day, Karl Rove stopped by the counsel's office to ask "how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc." [link|http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070315rove,1,7614897.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed|http://www.chicagotr...wsnationworld-hed] So Harriet threw out this idea to sack all of them. There was some discussion...and then Rove poked his head in and asked if they had decided? My universal "read between the lines" translator must be broken. This is still a case of the democrat's Pavlovian response to Karl Rove. Sorry. Thats all. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,461
3/16/07 2:18:11 PM
|
Copy of email
[link|http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/sampsonrove-email/|http://www.talkingpo...ampsonrove-email/]
Still don't see it doing anything but proving Karl was checking on Harriet's recommendation.
But, of course, what did he know and when did he know it...(lather lather lather).
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,464
3/16/07 2:27:40 PM
|
Plausible deniability
Bill, I think what's happening is that people "know" that when Rove asks a question, it's not just a question. Same as when Hillary "fired" the travel staff. There are people who don't technically have any legal authority behind what they're asking, but they seem to get their way.
In this specific case, it may very well be true that Rove was simply asking for information. But in a culture where people wield influence that goes beyond their job description, where orders are passed by implication, and everyone likes it that way[1], you can no more prove who didn't order something than you can prove who did.
[1] I'm not talking about this administration. I'm talking about the whole Beltway world.
===
Kip Hawley is still an idiot.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #278,479
3/16/07 3:36:52 PM
|
Yup.
My impression is that much more is going on than is stated explicitly in the e-mails. Things don't usually percolate in big organizations for nearly 2 years without someone pushing it.
Harriet Miers doesn't seem to me to be a person who would be pushing these things - she strikes me as someone who does what she's asked. Who asked? Well, who stood to benefit from the changes? Friends of Karl, perhaps? People worried about losing the House and Senate in close races, perhaps?
IOW, the need to follow the trail wherever it leads. Don't, at this point, accept that it was Miers and Samson's fault because they were freelancing (or something).
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #278,492
3/16/07 4:05:35 PM
|
This is exactly what starts it
ppl read the headline. Don't read the emails. Don't apply it to everyday in a HUGE org.
A suggesting is made..and by all accounts it was made by Harriet...but it could have been anyone considering they were just getting started with 2nd term, that they do a second term purge. Most don't like the idea..ask for alternatives.
One of the leaders and assistants to the Pres (KR) checks on status by poking his head in a door. Lacky shoots off an email saying "bossman stopped by and asked"
And what was the headline?
"Karl Rove Was Involved in Firing of Attorneys, Email Shows"
'Rove was in the middle of this mess'
Its Rove...so its SCANDAL.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,497
3/16/07 4:22:21 PM
|
Isn't it *also* possible
Rove is an un-elected political operative. As such he has no legal authority in anything. But people quickly learn that he has the backing of the president and other powerful administration officials. Eventually, his "requests" are little different from "orders" except without the accountability.
People who understand the way Washington works know to only document the things that make them look good, or cover their own asses. As long as no one can prove who was behind something, no one can ever be held to account for it. Washington has worked this way for a long time before the current crew came to power.
So like I said, it's possible that you're absolutely right, and that Rove had nothing to do with it. But do you really believe it couldn't have happened the other way?
===
Kip Hawley is still an idiot.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #278,500
3/16/07 4:33:37 PM
|
On this matter
if I were to give odds...99.9 to .1 that Rove initiated this. >thats< how unlikely I think it is.
I certainly think he knew...it was a term change, he's a key advisor on the President's staff...and as such I would expect him, as part of his JOB, to follow up on key initiatives in each of the big exec branches, including Justice.
I would also certainly EXPECT cronyism and a suggesting to the folks doing the replacing that "I have a friend"...and yes..I would expect the lacky to consider this important to act on..since Karl is pretty close to the boss.
However, I believe with near certainty that is the complete extent of his involvement.
He asked the question. Now we have a week of press coverage of him doing his job. (but its a SCANDAL).
Starting to make me pine for more coverage of Anna Nicole.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,503
3/16/07 4:57:03 PM
|
Shut your mouth
Nothing should make you pine for more coverage of her.
===
Kip Hawley is still an idiot.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #278,505
3/16/07 5:46:51 PM
|
Miers did not start it
From what I have seen in the coverage her suggestion to fire them all was made in Feb 2005. The start of the mess goes back to at least Jan 2005.
For the last 6 years Rove has been intimately involved in policy and politics. One of his former employees gets a district in Arkansas and all he did was poke his head in the door? That is BS.
I don't know if he started it, but he was involved in it. I would guess his goal in being involved with this was related to the 2006 elections and the voting demographics. I do believe that 'voter fraud' gets translated to keeping republican voters voting and derailing non-republican voters by state and local republicans and Rove knows this.
Seamus
|
Post #278,472
3/16/07 3:09:16 PM
|
E-Mails show Rove's Role in Attorny Firings
New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged. The e-mails also show how Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel \ufffd weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.
The e-mails put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales' explanations of the matter.
[...]
The e-mail exchange is dated more than a month before the White House acknowledged it was considering firing all the U.S. attorneys. On its face, the plan is not improper, inappropriate or even unusual: The president has the right to fire U.S. attorneys at any time, and presidents have done so when they took office.
What has made the issue a political firestorm is the White House's insistence that the idea came from Miers and was swiftly rejected.
White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters Tuesday that Miers had suggested firing all 93 attorneys, and that it was "her idea only." Snow said Miers' idea was quickly rejected by the Department of Justice.
[link|http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2954988&page=1|ABC News] lincoln
"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States.
[link|mailto:golf_lover44@yahoo.com|contact me]
|
Post #278,475
3/16/07 3:25:51 PM
|
They don't show that at all. Thats why I attached the email.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,600
3/17/07 1:04:45 PM
|
You must have better sources than ABC News, right?
They talked about NEW emails - ones (plural) that you're not talking about.
lincoln
"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States.
[link|mailto:golf_lover44@yahoo.com|contact me]
|
Post #278,608
3/17/07 1:55:33 PM
|
I guess I do.
Since the "new" email was the one that I linked to.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,476
3/16/07 3:28:30 PM
3/16/07 3:29:58 PM
|
Rove was the person people were looking to ok this
From farther down the Chicago Tribune article you linked to: 'Sampson wrote that as a political matter, "senators likely would resist wholesale (or even piecemeal) replacement of U.S. Attorneys they recommended. ... That said, if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I."'
That is what I meant be reading between the lines. Reading between this is definietly subjective, but I believe that if Karl wasn't backing this, then it probably wouldn't have happened.
Seamus
Edited by Seamus
March 16, 2007, 03:29:58 PM EDT
|
Post #278,477
3/16/07 3:32:33 PM
|
BS
KR is the political advisor to the President. Its HIS JOB to judge the political aspects of these decisions.
None of this points to him doing anything but asking about a plan that had been put forward to replace all 93...which all accounts say he and others opposed...and him them poking his head into someones office saying "whatever happened to...".
People reading into this that it was all his idea are all "hearing bells"
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,504
3/16/07 5:36:11 PM
|
It is not BS
It is my opinion. It is based on the belief the Rove is more than a political consultant, he also has influence on policy as well:
[link|http://www.newshounds.us/2006/04/19/breaking_mcclellan_resigns_rove_gives_up_policy_position.php|http://www.newshound...licy_position.php]
Byline: Dan Froomkin
"When President Bush gave longtime political guru and senior adviser Karl Rove the additional title of deputy chief of staff for policy a little over a year ago, it was the ultimate expression of Bush's failure to make a distinction between politics and policy."
[link|http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NTQ/is_2006_April_20/ai_n16346299|http://www.findartic...l_20/ai_n16346299]
Original article from the Washington Post in April 2006. Giving him the title just made it more formal.
Seamus
|
Post #278,508
3/16/07 6:17:33 PM
|
Guesswork, guesswork and more guesswork
you should be a reporter.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,512
3/16/07 6:53:59 PM
|
If I was a reporter
I would avoid putting these types of opinion into print for fear of losing access to high ranking officials.
Then let me ask you who was the person that pushed this? If it wasn't Rove then who was it?
You try to be independent and critical of all sides equally, but you don't think Rove was involved in this, you are being naive.
Seamus
|
Post #278,527
3/16/07 8:14:31 PM
|
Define "involved"
If that means...did he know they were planning to either replace all or some of the attorneys during the second term...then yes, he was involved.
If that means he was the one to institute said plan. No. I don't think him "involved".
If that means...Karl Rove reviewed each file and decided that these 8 had to go (the over-riding implication in all of this) I again say no, he wasn't involved.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,578
3/17/07 10:00:10 AM
|
like this
Rove was the person the local officials went to make sure something was done about the ags they didn't like. Rove probably kept it from happening until after they lost the 2006 elections because he didn't want to chance it and he really thought they would keep both houses. After the 2006 election he started looking to 2008 election.
Or he kept it from getting to the president until after the 2006 elections. I do tend to believe the president actively agreed to the firings, but no way to prove it.
To me he is involved because he is the main conduit for getting a presidential decision.
Seamus
|
Post #278,583
3/17/07 11:02:45 AM
|
then no.
and you have to completely ignore the "scathing" email reality to make that determination.
Unless, of course, Karl Rove became a Judge while we weren't looking.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,585
3/17/07 11:21:54 AM
|
We may know more next week.
[link|http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002788.php|TPMMuckracker]: [Conyers wrote:]"The White House Counsel's office advised us this afternoon that the White House would not be providing documents to the Committee, or providing the White House's position with respect to the Committee securing the testimony of White House officials today. This is contrary to earlier expectations that the Committee would receive these answers and documents today and is, therefore, very disappointing. The Counsel's office has assured me that they will continue to work in good faith to get answers to those questions by early next week.
Despite those assurances and my continued hope that the White House will resolve these questions in a cooperative fashion, the Committee must take steps to ensure that we are not being stonewalled or slow walked on this matter. I will schedule a vote to issue subpoenas next week for the documents and officials we need to talk to. Allegations that our criminal justice system has been undermined by partisan politics and that the Congress was deceived about these activities are among the most serious this Congress will consider and we expect immediate answers." We'll see what happens. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #278,615
3/17/07 6:39:52 PM
|
Can you point me to the scathing email
reality you are refering to?
If it was the email you linked to at the beginning of this thread, that email shows how involved Gonzales was in determing the mechanics of the firings, what it doesn't show is was pushing this at the white house. Could have been Gonzales, but I think Rove is still the much more likely candidate.
Either way, the white house pushed through set section in the 2nd patroit act that allowed them to do this and they used it.
Congress needs to be alot more determined not to let legislation slipped through like this again.
Seamus
|
Post #278,622
3/17/07 9:46:39 PM
|
So now you agree with me?
The email that created all the stir is the one I linked. So now, you see, why I question what all the stir is about?
And again, the fact that the act was rubber stamped by D and R alike seems to be dismissed because it was "slipped in there".
Round and round we go.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,653
3/18/07 6:38:19 AM
|
No I don't
Because I am not sure what you believe. Who pushed the firings through?
I believe that without Rove's approval it wouldn't have happened. It looks like they were trying to swing the voting towards the republicans in certain states - elections are Rove's area and I don't believe anyone in this administration steps on his toes, except shrub.
Could have been Gonzalas, but I don't think so. He has his issues regarding the blocking of investigations that might bite him in the ass.
Unfortunately, Congresses has probably let way too legislation be voted on without their intimate knowledge of the details. This is a long term issue to get congress to take responsibility for the legislation they pass.
The firings are an immediate issue. It may have been legal, but the ags need to be able to do their jobs without worrying that they will lose their job if they chose the law over politics.
Seamus
|
Post #278,665
3/18/07 9:23:03 AM
|
If not Rove, who *did* push it?
===
Kip Hawley is still an idiot.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #278,619
3/17/07 9:20:49 PM
|
is /iz/ - verb
is /ɪz/
\ufffdverb
1.\t3rd pers. sing. pres. indic. of be.
\ufffdIdiom
2.\tas is. as1 (def. 25).
[Origin: bef. 900; ME, OE; c. D is, ON es, er, G, Goth ist, L est, Gk est\ufffd, OCS jestĭ, Skt asti]
There. I hope we've settled that! jb4
"It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment."
— George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
|
Post #278,623
3/17/07 9:47:47 PM
|
It'd be funny if it wasn't sad.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #278,467
3/16/07 2:33:35 PM
|
They are already backtracking on Harriet
The White House is already backtracking on saying Harriet Miers had the original idea of removing them all. Now memories are hazy, and nobody is sure who's idea it was. This is still a case of the democrat's Pavlovian response to Karl Rove. Sorry. Thats all. If you where talking about Gonzales you might be right, the scandal was brewing for several days before Rove's name was associated with it. My read is that that Congress started out irked at Gonzales for taking advantage of an obvious loophole in the PATRIOT act to bypass the normal Congressional approval. But once they began to investigate it became clear that this was a big problem. Six officials removed from office might not seem like much, but US Attorneys are major officials and are supposed to be free from political influence. It is very rare to remove any before their term is up, except when a president takes office when tradition allows him to accept the traditionally offered resignations from any and all. Plus, it appears that several of those removed from office where removed for prosecuting Republicans or refusing to prosecute Democrats. And that is major league contemptible behavior. Jay
|
