Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unfortunately, it can be hard to tell the difference between investigating and pretending to investigate, especially if you don't work in the Attorney General's office. After Janet Reno and Alberto Gonzales, what can we realistically expect the new AG to do?
Although, it appears certain he will be concerned, he faced some aggressive questioning yesterday. Mukasey doesn't know if water boarding is torture. He believes the president can be above the law. IMHO - The telecommunication companies that went along with eavesdropping program should be punished. Easy enough to get permission to wiretap under FISA. Warrants can be issued under emergency rules. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/wa...Ke29+3470vxazQ
The Senate should confirm Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey on one condition: that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration.
Since when did the Attorney General position, turn into something that SHOULD be partisan towards any side? Well we cant deny in the past that it has been, it surely shouldnt start out that way.
Recent revelations that the Justice Department has authorized abusive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, suggest that the Administration is violating U.S. laws against torture.
First, I personally have NO problem what so ever with abusive interrogation techniques used against non-usa citizens, who are attempting to harm usa citizens. We would rather have USA citizens harmed then those poor terrorists I guess. Furthermore, the legal aspect of it has been examined over, and over, and over, no laws are being violated.
And there is evidence that the Bush administration may have violated the law by wiretapping U.S. citizens, which the Justice Department also approved.
What evidence? There has been accusations that have been found to be not in violation of the laws. I guess Clintons listening in on phone calls of those people who opposed them were just fine.
Then there is the scandal over the firing of the U.S. attorneys.
What scandal? ooh, I know, the one the Democrats created out of nowhere. I dont recall the same scandal being started by the Democrats when Clinton fired his group of US attorneys, even though he fired way more then Bush.
Another is that although the Bush administration has stonewalled congressional inquiry by hiding behind executive privilege, it could not use the same tactics on a special prosecutor.
Would this be the same executive priviledges that Clinton created?
blah blah blah blah blah.
And while I dont believe Bush has been not doing anything questionable, the whole stoy is a biased piece of crap.
The Senate should confirm Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey on one condition: that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration.
Since when did the Attorney General position, turn into something that SHOULD be partisan towards any side? Well we cant deny in the past that it has been, it surely shouldnt start out that way.
You can thank bush for pursuing cronyism, hiring incompetents (Iraq for example). How about ******** challenging the assisted suicide law in Oregon tossing a bone to the religious right? If you will recall, Janet Reno appointed the special prosecutor to investigate Clinton. This is what I call non partisan. The difference between bush cronyism and Clinton cronyism is that Clinton hired competent cronies.
Recent revelations that the Justice Department has authorized abusive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, suggest that the Administration is violating U.S. laws against torture.
First, I personally have NO problem what so ever with abusive interrogation techniques used against non-usa citizens, who are attempting to harm usa citizens. We would rather have USA citizens harmed then those poor terrorists I guess. Furthermore, the legal aspect of it has been examined over, and over, and over, no laws are being violated.
I don't agree with John McCain on a lot of issues, but I do trust him on this issue. Recently, he stated that from his personal experience he knows torture doesn't work. It just makes us look like hypocrites in the eyes of the world.
And there is evidence that the Bush administration may have violated the law by wiretapping U.S. citizens, which the Justice Department also approved.
What evidence? There has been accusations that have been found to be not in violation of the laws. I guess Clintons listening in on phone calls of those people who opposed them were just fine.
A lawsuit has been filed against telecommunication companies, Verizon for one. Qwest refused believing it was illegal. Telecommunication companies do not deserve immunity. Isn't there a difference between the Clinton phone calls and the possibility of everyone in America being wiretapped? washingtonpost.com
Verizon hit with $20bn wiretapping lawsuit - Computer Business Review (http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=EA456175-0083-4A48-BC04-832096B9F927 - broken link)
Then there is the scandal over the firing of the U.S. attorneys.
What scandal? ooh, I know, the one the Democrats created out of nowhere. I dont recall the same scandal being started by the Democrats when Clinton fired his group of US attorneys, even though he fired way more then Bush.
The difference between the Clinton firings and the bush firings was that Clinton did it at the beginning of his term not right before an election. There is solid proof that Pete Domenici , for one, tried to intimidate a prosecutor in New Mexico for not pursuing a case against dems in order to influence the election. The prosecutor was a republican so has no reason to lie.
Another is that although the Bush administration has stonewalled congressional inquiry by hiding behind executive privilege, it could not use the same tactics on a special prosecutor.
Would this be the same executive priviledges that Clinton created?
Clinton sought but was denied executive privilege in the Lewinsky affair. Bush approved three times. I believe Nixon was also denied. Why does bush get away with it? Glenn Greenwald - Political Blogs and Opinions - Salon
Bush has abused his authority over and over again in order to increase power in the presidency. His excessive use of the signing statement in order to circumvent congressional law is a prime example of his total disregard for the law.
tigerlily, there has clearly been more than a double standard between what becomes acceptable for elected officials in the Republican or the Democratic Party.
Bush has crossed the line, often; Ronald Reagan crossed the line on more than one occasion (we all remember Old Ollie North). Nonetheless, the Republican Party runs a well oiled (double entrendre not deliberate) shop. They are more monied, more united and in the end, they win battles, not wars while Democrats fail to get to first base. It's a pity and I don't see much change.
tigerlily, there has clearly been more than a double standard between what becomes acceptable for elected officials in the Republican or the Democratic Party.
Bush has crossed the line, often; Ronald Reagan crossed the line on more than one occasion (we all remember Old Ollie North). Nonetheless, the Republican Party runs a well oiled (double entrendre not deliberate) shop. They are more monied, more united and in the end, they win battles, not wars while Democrats fail to get to first base. It's a pity and I don't see much change.
They all crossed the line on several occasions, not just Reagan and Bush.
The difference is, the media is good at covering up the Democrats problems, (like Jefferson's $90K in the freezer), with hardly a mention of it in the press, but Republican machine is good at covering up the Republican problems, (like Craig). When the republicans cant quiet the problem, the call for the indivual to leave.
It all comes down to what way does one believe.. I for one would rather have the removal of the bad apples, then carmel coating them, making them look good.
Well, like I just said in another thread, I'm not for sugar coating anything but in politics, I suspect, we'd have one big bushel of rotten apples (nearly the whole DC-crowd).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
