| Author |
Topic:
Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
ROTSFan
Registered:
Jul '06
|
Date Posted:
7/22/07 10:52am
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
Obi-Zahn Kenobi posted:
If it were discourse, I'd take part everyday. Usually I only post when I'm emotionally provoked.
That's probably when you shouldn't post.
-----signature-----
 Fics in profile; ask me to unlock ~I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything I hoped it would be." - Office Space
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
anidanami124
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
7/22/07 12:41pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
There's just no denying I think that the firing of the U.S. Attorneys is probably just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the widespread corruption of the Bush administration. Sunday's editorial in the NYT says that the Bush administration is now considering instructing the Justice Department not to prosecute anyone charged with contempt for not responding to congressional subpoenas in the matter of the fired U.S. Attorneys. That's just about as dirty, corrupt, and banana-republic sleazy as a presidency can get.
Are they going to subpoena other past administrations have have also fired U.S. Attorneys and or govement works? If not then I can see why Bush would be doing that. It's ok for oen person to do it but not the other.
-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
7/22/07 12:52pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
- Date Edited:
7/22/07 12:57pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Princess_Tina
|
anidanami124 posted:
There's just no denying I think that the firing of the U.S. Attorneys is probably just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the widespread corruption of the Bush administration. Sunday's editorial in the NYT says that the Bush administration is now considering instructing the Justice Department not to prosecute anyone charged with contempt for not responding to congressional subpoenas in the matter of the fired U.S. Attorneys. That's just about as dirty, corrupt, and banana-republic sleazy as a presidency can get.
Are they going to subpoena other past administrations have have also fired U.S. Attorneys and or govement works? If not then I can see why Bush would be doing that. It's ok for oen person to do it but not the other.
It doesn't sound like you actually know the details of the firings. There seems to be abundant evidence that these U.S. Attorneys were fired for strictly partisan reasons, which should fall well outside the normal criteria for such firings (normal criteria would be incompetence or dishonesty, etc.). The evidence suggests the Bush administration has sought to run the Justice Department in a strictly political way -- discouraging prosecution of Republican politicians and encouraging prosecution of Democrats even when they haven't done anything.
It is of the utmost importance that the top law-enforcement agencies of the United States of America operate in a thoroughly professional, unbiased manner. This cannot be done when the President himself encourages the Justice Department to be run with a political (i.e., pro-Republican and anti-Democrat) agenda. This is another example of Bush being a "banana republic" type of president, because such blatantly partisan use of the nation's top law-enforcement agency has usually only happened in banana republics run by crooks, tyrants and despots.
JUSTICE MUST BE IMPARTIAL. We cannot be like a banana republic in this regard. It would be a gigantic step backwards for the United States. The Justice Department simply must investigate wrongdoing that falls within its jurisdiction without any regard for whether a suspect is a prominent Republican, the president's buddy, or a Democrat that the president doesn't like. Once we start going down the path of a third-world banana republic, we will become the laughingstock of all Western democracies.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
anidanami124
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
7/22/07 1:06pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
It doesn't sound like you actually know the details of the firings. There seems to be abundant evidence that these U.S. Attorneys were fired for strictly partisan reasons, which should fall well outside the normal criteria for such firings (normal criteria would be incompetence or dishonesty, etc.). The evidence suggests the Bush administration has sought to run the Justice Department in a strictly political way -- discouraging prosecution of Republican politicians and encouraging prosecution of Democrats even when they haven't done anything.
And it's not like that's never been done before....wait I go back to what K_K posted it has been done before. So yeah it was done for strictly partisan reasons. Not like that was never done before.
And really 100 people being fired is worse then seven. And both were don for strictly partisan reasons. It can't be ok for one person to do and not the other. If that is the case then take away the powers of Bush and those that come after him from being able to fire US Attorneys and givng pardons.
Either it wrong for all or wrong for no one. You can't have it both ways.
-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
7/22/07 1:12pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
It doesn't sound like you actually know the details of the firings. There seems to be abundant evidence that these U.S. Attorneys were fired for strictly partisan reasons, which should fall well outside the normal criteria for such firings (normal criteria would be incompetence or dishonesty, etc.).
This isn't accurate either though. As appointed officials, US Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of the executive branch. This is why, when a new President takes office, it's not uncommon for mass firings to take place, and the incoming President can fill the new positions with personnel who share his views. The position is completely politically based.
My post isn't meant to apply specifically to this example, as it is uncommon, but it's not fair to pretend that this authority doesn't exist for any President. Such represents one of the greatest benefits to an appointed position, but also one of the most obvious drawbacks.
-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
7/22/07 1:20pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
Mr44 posted:
It doesn't sound like you actually know the details of the firings. There seems to be abundant evidence that these U.S. Attorneys were fired for strictly partisan reasons, which should fall well outside the normal criteria for such firings (normal criteria would be incompetence or dishonesty, etc.).
This isn't accurate either though. As appointed officials, US Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of the executive branch. This is why, when a new President takes office, it's not uncommon for mass firings to take place, and the incoming President can fill the new positions with personnel who share his views. The position is completely politically based.
My post isn't meant to apply specifically to this example, as it is uncommon, but it's not fair to pretend that this authority doesn't exist for any President. Such represents one of the greatest benefits to an appointed position, but also one of the most obvious drawbacks.
Wrong. It's been a while since I read up all the detail, but I remember that a picture came together that could add up to obstruction of justice charges. Why? Because these U.S. Attorneys had been pressured into either abandoning investigations about Republicans or trying to railroad Democrat politicians. Well, that's the general idea. They wouldn't go along with it, then they were fired. I do believe all the elements that have been made public suggest that obstruction of justice may have played a part in the firings.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
anidanami124
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
7/22/07 1:36pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
Princess_Tina posted:
Mr44 posted:
It doesn't sound like you actually know the details of the firings. There seems to be abundant evidence that these U.S. Attorneys were fired for strictly partisan reasons, which should fall well outside the normal criteria for such firings (normal criteria would be incompetence or dishonesty, etc.).
This isn't accurate either though. As appointed officials, US Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of the executive branch. This is why, when a new President takes office, it's not uncommon for mass firings to take place, and the incoming President can fill the new positions with personnel who share his views. The position is completely politically based.
My post isn't meant to apply specifically to this example, as it is uncommon, but it's not fair to pretend that this authority doesn't exist for any President. Such represents one of the greatest benefits to an appointed position, but also one of the most obvious drawbacks.
Wrong. It's been a while since I read up all the detail, but I remember that a picture came together that could add up to obstruction of justice charges. Why? Because these U.S. Attorneys had been pressured into either abandoning investigations about Republicans or trying to railroad Democrat politicians. Well, that's the general idea. They wouldn't go along with it, then they were fired. I do believe all the elements that have been made public suggest that obstruction of justice may have played a part in the firings.
You have any proof to back that up with? Really though what Mr44 said is true it's not uncommon for mass firings to take palce. That's one of the powers the President. On top of that many of the people they get in or try to will in most cases line up with what they believe. If not they fire them. It's not like that's something that just Bush does. All Presidents have done things just like that.
-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
7/22/07 1:39pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
Well, first off, this would be a good time to start providing sources so everyone in the thread could see the same information that you're basing your posts on. That way, no one has to guess what the situation is.
Obstruction of justice charges would result from interfering with a specific ongoing criminal case. That's the element of an obstructing charge:
HERE
The President may be well within his right to claim executive privilege here under authority of office. That in itself isn't illegal or anything of the sort, depending on the circumstances.
That's why my post had a general scope. The President, as head of the executive, has the authority to dismiss appointed officials at his discretion. The President, if he wished, could fire and appoint a new Attorney General every week if he so wanted to. Such would certainly be extreme, but certainly within the authority of office. Every President shares this same authority.
I was merely referencing the general authority that exists for all Presidents in response to your comments that there are formal criteria or that the positions weren't politically based to begin with. By their very definition, appointed positions are politically based.
-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
7/22/07 1:41pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
anidanami124 posted:
Princess_Tina posted:
Mr44 posted:
It doesn't sound like you actually know the details of the firings. There seems to be abundant evidence that these U.S. Attorneys were fired for strictly partisan reasons, which should fall well outside the normal criteria for such firings (normal criteria would be incompetence or dishonesty, etc.).
This isn't accurate either though. As appointed officials, US Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of the executive branch. This is why, when a new President takes office, it's not uncommon for mass firings to take place, and the incoming President can fill the new positions with personnel who share his views. The position is completely politically based.
My post isn't meant to apply specifically to this example, as it is uncommon, but it's not fair to pretend that this authority doesn't exist for any President. Such represents one of the greatest benefits to an appointed position, but also one of the most obvious drawbacks.
Wrong. It's been a while since I read up all the detail, but I remember that a picture came together that could add up to obstruction of justice charges. Why? Because these U.S. Attorneys had been pressured into either abandoning investigations about Republicans or trying to railroad Democrat politicians. Well, that's the general idea. They wouldn't go along with it, then they were fired. I do believe all the elements that have been made public suggest that obstruction of justice may have played a part in the firings.
You have any proof to back that up with? Really though what Mr44 said is true it's not uncommon for mass firings to take palce. That's one of the powers the President. On top of that many of the people they get in or try to will in most cases line up with what they believe. If not they fire them. It's not like that's something that just Bush does. All Presidents have done things just like that.
Do you have any proof to back that up with? Where are these mass firings you keep talking about? I haven't heard of a single one. There has never been any U.S. President, to the best of my knowledge, that has invoked executive privilege to try to keep former administration officials from explaining to Congress what exactly led to the firings. If Bush had nothing to hide, he wouldn't risk having his former officials be found in contempt of Congress.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
anidanami124
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
7/22/07 1:42pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
Mr44 posted:
WellThat's why my post had a general scope. The President, as head of the executive, has the authority to dismiss appointed officials at his discretion. The President, if he wished, could fire and appoint a new Attorney General every week if he so wanted to. Such would certainly be extreme, but certainly within the authority of office. Every President shares this same authority.
That would be a lot of Attorney Generals there.
-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
7/22/07 1:44pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
Mr44 posted:
Well, first off, this would be a good time to start providing sources so everyone in the thread could see the same information that you're basing your posts on. That way, no one has to guess what the situation is.
Obstruction of justice charges would result from interfering with a specific ongoing criminal case. That's the element of an obstructing charge:
HERE
The President may be well within his right to claim executive privilege here under authority of office. That in itself isn't illegal or anything of the sort, depending on the circumstances.
That's why my post had a general scope. The President, as head of the executive, has the authority to dismiss appointed officials at his discretion. The President, if he wished, could fire and appoint a new Attorney General every week if he so wanted to. Such would certainly be extreme, but certainly within the authority of office. Every President shares this same authority.
I was merely referencing the general authority that exists for all Presidents in response to your comments that there are formal criteria or that the positions weren't politically based to begin with. By their very definition, appointed positions are politically based.
Sorry, but "executive privilege" doesn't give any president the right to engage in obstruction of justice. That is what has happened here. It's not as though he'd cleaned out the Justice Department shortly after taking office. The pattern suggests a blatant attempt to influence ongoing criminal investigations. It's one thing to fire and/or appoint someone, but it's quite a different one to do so in an attempt to influence an ongoing investigation, or to prevent the normal administration of justice. It will ultimately be up to Congress to determine the extent of wrongdoing. But it's very clear that Bush feels he has something he has to hide from the American people.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
7/22/07 1:58pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
I don't know, I would simply repeat that it would probably be best to provide sources that back up such claims. Otherwise, these simply degenerate into arguments and not debates.
I don't know if there is any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. If you have some, please provide it. Otherwise, no one can say with any certainty what has happened with any examples. All I am saying is instead of making definitive pronouncements, why not examine the overall situation with everyone in the thread?
-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
7/22/07 2:00pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
Mr44 posted:
I don't know, I would simply repeat that it would probably be best to provide sources that back up such claims. Otherwise, these simply degenerate into arguments and not debates.
I don't know if there is any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. If you have some, please provide it. Otherwise, no one can say with any certainty what has happened with any examples.
I am tired of "providing sources" because almost invariably the other side will automatically claim they come from biased sources, sometimes without even looking at them! If follow the nation's top newspapers closely, though, you should have a pretty good idea of why Congress is demanding explanations from the Bush administration. And yes, following a through investigation, there may be evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Just as in Watergate, it may be a while before all the facts are out due to the stonewalling of an administration that knows it overstepped its bounds.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
anidanami124
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
7/22/07 2:01pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
- Date Edited:
7/22/07 2:05pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
anidanami124
|
Princess_Tina posted:
Do you have any proof to back that up with? Where are these mass firings you keep talking about? I haven't heard of a single one. There has never been any U.S. President, to the best of my knowledge, that has invoked executive privilege to try to keep former administration officials from explaining to Congress what exactly led to the firings. If Bush had nothing to hide, he wouldn't risk having his former officials be found in contempt of Congress.
That's becasue Congress never had a problem with the President using his powers to fire people before that is with in his power. Yet when Bush does it he has to explain why. Well then Other past President should have to expalin why.
I'm quoting from KK here Truman fired 400 people. Clinton he fired ever last US Attorneys. And really the President can hair and the fire who he wants as long as as it's with in his power.
It does not need to be a mass clean out. People are making it bigger then it really and Mr44 has shown the reasons way. Ever person that works for the President is there for politically reason and can be fire for politically reasons and will be done so again. Let's say Hillary becomes the next President and she cleans house and even fires some US Attorneys that cause there to be obstruction of justice will you be up in arms about that?
When Clinton fired all the US Attorneys when he took office I'm sure many of them were working on a case. Did you hear about obstruction of justice there?
I am tired of "providing sources" because almost invariably the other side will automatically claim they come from biased sources
Well that depends on what source you are linking to. You have to becareful with sources on the net. 
-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
7/22/07 2:05pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
anidanami124 posted:
Princess_Tina posted:
Do you have any proof to back that up with? Where are these mass firings you keep talking about? I haven't heard of a single one. There has never been any U.S. President, to the best of my knowledge, that has invoked executive privilege to try to keep former administration officials from explaining to Congress what exactly led to the firings. If Bush had nothing to hide, he wouldn't risk having his former officials be found in contempt of Congress.
That's becasue Congress never had a problem with the President using his powers to fire people before that is with in his power. Yet when Bush does it he has to explain why. Well then Other past President should have to expalin why.
I'm quoting from KK here Truman fired 400 people. Clinton he fired ever last US Attorneys. And really the President can hair and the fire who he wants as long as as it's with in his power.
It does not need to be a mass clean out. People are making it bigger then it really and Mr44 has shown the reasons way. Ever person that works for the President is there for politically reason and can be fire for politically reasons and will be done so again. Let's say Hillary becomes the next President and she cleans house and even fires some US Attorneys that cause there to be obstruction of justice will you be up in arms about that?
When Clinton fired all the US Attorneys when he took office I'm sure many of them were working on a case. Did you hear about obstruction of justice there?
That's because no other president has ever abused their privileges to obstruct justice.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
