IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New 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)
New 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
New 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)
New 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
New You're forgetting the other part of the analogy ....
ultimately, nothing ever came out of travelgate either.
New Sworn testimony from this crowd
I chuckle.
-----------------------------------------
Draft Clark [link|http://draftwesleyclark.com/|now].
New 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
New 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].
New 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
New Then why do you get upset when they get called on it?
New 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
New 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
New 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
New 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
New 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
New 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.
Expand Edited by Another Scott March 21, 2007, 12:23:42 AM EDT
New 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]
New You can call me "Mr. Obvious" if you'd like.
New ICLRPD (new thread)
Created as new thread #279000 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=279000|ICLRPD]
-----------------------------------------
Draft Clark [link|http://draftwesleyclark.com/|now].
     "They did it too" only works if, ya know, they did it too - (Silverlock) - (77)
         Please point me to something... - (bepatient) - (71)
             Re: Please point me to something... - (Seamus) - (2)
                 So now ppl in Washington can't read - (bepatient) - (1)
                     Re: So now ppl in Washington can't read - (Seamus)
             I already said that he has the legal authority. - (Silverlock) - (4)
                 Who lied about it? Prez? Gonzo? - (bepatient) - (3)
                     You should learn more about what you are defending. -NT - (Silverlock) - (2)
                         You should learn to clarify use of pronouns -NT - (bepatient) - (1)
                             And I was incorrect. - (bepatient)
             I'm lost.... - (Simon_Jester) - (61)
                 nit - (boxley) - (58)
                     Nope... - (Simon_Jester) - (57)
                         Point missed - (bepatient) - (56)
                             I don't think so. - (Simon_Jester) - (55)
                                 bingo - (boxley)
                                 Hillary did it and had no authority - (bepatient) - (53)
                                     Then who let her? - (drewk) - (22)
                                         Thats why they call it TravelGate. - (bepatient) - (19)
                                             And Rove gave the order, and it was followed. - (jb4) - (18)
                                                 No, he didn't. And there's sworn testimony that >she< did. -NT - (bepatient) - (17)
                                                     Which, of course, they're frantically backpeddaling on. - (jb4) - (2)
                                                         Who is backpedaling on what. - (bepatient)
                                                         You're forgetting the other part of the analogy .... - (Simon_Jester)
                                                     Sworn testimony from this crowd - (Silverlock) - (13)
                                                         Look it up yourself if you must - (bepatient) - (12)
                                                             Missed point - (Silverlock) - (11)
                                                                 Make me laugh - (bepatient) - (10)
                                                                     Then why do you get upset when they get called on it? -NT - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                                         Huh? - (bepatient) - (8)
                                                                             real governing - (Seamus) - (7)
                                                                                 Pessimist, remember? - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                                     What kind of pessimist? - (Seamus) - (1)
                                                                                         Like what? - (bepatient)
                                                                                 Wouldn't be surprised if that provision was added in conf. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                                                     Wow, you're a genius! - (drewk) - (2)
                                                                                         You can call me "Mr. Obvious" if you'd like. -NT - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                             ICLRPD (new thread) - (Silverlock)
                                         pro/con link - (boxley) - (1)
                                             If that page is basically accurate ... - (drewk)
                                     Re: Hillary did it and had no authority - (Seamus) - (29)
                                         What emails are you talking about? - (bepatient) - (28)
                                             Copy of email - (bepatient) - (26)
                                                 Plausible deniability - (drewk) - (6)
                                                     Yup. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                                         This is exactly what starts it - (bepatient) - (4)
                                                             Isn't it *also* possible - (drewk) - (2)
                                                                 On this matter - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                     Shut your mouth - (drewk)
                                                             Miers did not start it - (Seamus)
                                                 E-Mails show Rove's Role in Attorny Firings - (lincoln) - (3)
                                                     They don't show that at all. Thats why I attached the email. -NT - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                         You must have better sources than ABC News, right? - (lincoln) - (1)
                                                             I guess I do. - (bepatient)
                                                 Rove was the person people were looking to ok this - (Seamus) - (14)
                                                     BS - (bepatient) - (13)
                                                         It is not BS - (Seamus) - (12)
                                                             Guesswork, guesswork and more guesswork - (bepatient) - (11)
                                                                 If I was a reporter - (Seamus) - (10)
                                                                     Define "involved" - (bepatient) - (9)
                                                                         like this - (Seamus) - (6)
                                                                             then no. - (bepatient) - (5)
                                                                                 We may know more next week. - (Another Scott)
                                                                                 Can you point me to the scathing email - (Seamus) - (3)
                                                                                     So now you agree with me? - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                                         No I don't - (Seamus)
                                                                                         If not Rove, who *did* push it? -NT - (drewk)
                                                                         is /iz/ - verb - (jb4) - (1)
                                                                             It'd be funny if it wasn't sad. -NT - (bepatient)
                                             They are already backtracking on Harriet - (JayMehaffey)
                 Tradition - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                     I think this is the section of the renewed Patriot Act. - (Another Scott)
             Welcome to the fight, comrade. -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Dan Froomkin says don't be distracted, keep an eye on Rove. - (Another Scott) - (4)
             Thats right. Hear the bells? - (bepatient) - (3)
                 We'll see. -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     hell of a guy! :-) -NT - (bepatient) - (1)
                         No, You Are! - (Another Scott)

Strong in the elbows but weak in the knees.
249 ms