Still Hating America.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
I don't know what crimes were committed yet, or by who.

The crime is that this non-event is clogging up the airwaves, while more important stuff like the (i) the miserable approval rating of the new Dem Congress and (ii) spending of the Dems is making the prior GOP Congress look like a bunch of tightwads - isn't even making page 5 of the NYT.

[SlaveNoMore]

y Tyrone Slothrop
Possibly Congress is most exercised about the possibility that administration officials were lying to them, and wants to pursue that, in order to ensure that it can exercise oversight going forward.

I.E., Fitz so disappointed the KOS kids when he had nothing on Rove, that they now are demanding that Congress take a second (third, fourth and fifth) bite at the apple.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The crime is that this non-event is clogging up the airwaves, while more important stuff like the (i) the miserable approval rating of the new Dem Congress and (ii) spending of the Dems is making the prior GOP Congress look like a bunch of tightwads - isn't even making page 5 of the NYT.

The point of the second link is that some Rs in Congress are willing to vote for a bill that sets a pullout date from Iraq -- i.e., they are willing to support terrorists, in your formulation -- so long as the bill provides money for their district.

Interesting that you, or the author, would see that as an indictment of Dems.



eta: As for the first item -- do you think the fact that the Dem-controlled Congress's approval ratings are only 7 points higher than the R-controlled Congress's ratings were at the end of the term has anything to do with the fact that the Dems have not moved precipitously to withdraw troops from Iraq?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Atrios says someone CNN posed this good question:

• I think also, another thing to look at, I followed up a question about executive privilege. You heard Tony Snow at the end there saying the president has no recollection of being involved in this decision to fire the US attorneys. So we asked the question then, well why are you citing executive privilege - or at least suggesting you will, and yesterday the president said the principle at stake here is candid advice from his advisers to the president - if the president was not involved in the decision, then how can you cite executive privilege on something he was really not involved in? And Tony Snow basically said, it's a good question and I don't know the answer.

Once upon a time, you would've posted a link. Did Spanky actually convince you that re-posting text is more credible?

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
The point of the second link is that some Rs in Congress are willing to vote for a bill that sets a pullout date from Iraq -- i.e., they are willing to support terrorists, in your formulation -- so long as the bill provides money for their district.

Interesting that you, or the author, would see that as an indictment of Dems.

The first point was that the Dems excoriated the GOP for spending like drunken sailors. Now in power, they are threatening to spend even more. Perhaps you missed this, as the result is obvious.

The ancillary point, however, is that a disgusting number of GOPers are continuing to toss aside principles for yet another handout.

eta: As for the first item -- do you think the fact that the Dem-controlled Congress's approval ratings are only 7 points higher than the R-controlled Congress's ratings were at the end of the term has anything to do with the fact that the Dems have not moved precipitously to withdraw troops from Iraq?

Probably more that they cannot articulate a single course of action.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Once upon a time, you would've posted a link. Did Spanky actually convince you that re-posting text is more credible?

He said it was Atrios.

So check www.iamapompousdouche.com

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Probably more that they cannot articulate a single course of action.

This should be a surprise to absolutely no one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Once upon a time, you would've posted a link. Did Spanky actually convince you that re-posting text is more credible?

Anyone who wants to find Atrios can find it. For whatever reason, he quoted CNN without linking to it, which is why I didn't bother to link to him. But if Bush really said that he didn't have anything to do with the decision -- and if Spanky wants to contradict that, I'd like to hear about it -- then it doesn't matter whether the quotation was made up out of whole cloth.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
He said it was Atrios.

So check www.iamapompousdouche.com

Even if it were Michael Moore quoting the DU, the point would be a good one.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I don't know what crimes were committed yet, or by who. I've heard that the purpose of an investigation is sometimes to figure that stuff out.

And sometimes, of course, it's just grandstanding. Here, I think it's more about watching the Bush Admin twist itself up some more, and the Rs more generally.

That being said, I wouldn't assume that there won't be some damaging admissions or documents. Two weeks ago, I wouldn't have predicted that so many senators would vote to strip a provision -- any provision -- from the Patriot Act.

I've got no problem with an investigation. I have a problem with Congress being the investigators.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've got no problem with an investigation. I have a problem with Congress being the investigators.

Seems to me the usual branch of government that does that sort of investigation is the branch of government under investigation. It's not like any of the remaining AUSAs are disinterested parties in this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've got no problem with an investigation. I have a problem with Congress being the investigators.

Under our little scheme of checks and balances, it does make sense to have Congress exercising oversight over the Executive Branch. The framers having decided that the alternative you seem to be proposing didn't work so well under King George, etc.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Under our little scheme of checks and balances, it does make sense to have Congress exercising oversight over the Executive Branch. The framers having decided that the alternative you seem to be proposing didn't work so well under King George, etc.

The DOJ investigates the EB all the time, but if you are concerned, do it behind closed doors and take the grandstanding out of it. Or do a special prosecutor.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The DOJ investigates the EB all the time, but if you are concerned, do it behind closed doors and take the grandstanding out of it. Or do a special prosecutor.

The DOJ doesn't investigate the White House all the time. (And special prosecutors are DOJ. You may be thinking of independent prosecutors, like Kenneth Starr, but that law expired.)

And the open doors should protect both sides from bad actors. If Congress takes sworn testimony behind closed doors, what prevents it from leaking isolated bits to make the WH look bad, and dragging out the investigation for political reasons, while pretending that there's more there than you might guess (but we can't tell you -- closed doors). If the White House didn't have something to hide, would it really fear an open hearing so much?

In the end, confrontations between Congress and the White House are going to have a large element of politics to them. You can't exactly take the politics out of it.

eta: this is interesting (hi Sidd!). A special prosecutor is something the EB would appoint, not Congress.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Seems to me the usual branch of government that does that sort of investigation is the branch of government under investigation. It's not like any of the remaining AUSAs are disinterested parties in this.

Plus, they'd get fired if they got anywhere.