Looking busy
Now Congress is threatening legal action in response to the White House refusing to turn over documents related to the U.S. attorney firings, and several Republicans loyal to Bush have jumped on the bandwagon.
It is a bipartisan effort to make Congress look busy with important matters while not actually accomplishing anything at all. Lawyers on both sides, well versed in federal procedural law, can drag this out as long as it serves the needs of the two major parties.
The showdown is nothing more than a show. They are using gridlock as a stall tactic. It is no threat.
It is a fig leaf. The Republicans want to give the troop surge time to play itself out, while the Democrats want to divert attention away from their inability to deal with the problem that voters elected them to deal with.
Brian Quade, Denver
Brian Quade said:
"It is a bipartisan effort to make Congress look busy with important matters while not actually accomplishing anything at all. "
Yes, such a trifling matter this penchant for the President and his cronies to repeatedly break the law and endlessly lie about it.
Brian, has it occurred to you that the Iraq war that you want Congress to take action on is a direct outgrowth of the lawlessness and lack of honesty which resulted in those subpoenas?
Posted by Charles B on July 10, 2007 06:47 AMBrian: "The Republicans want to give the troop surge time to play itself out,"
It looks to me like the Republicans are having their way. The surge does seem to be playing itself out. Right now only the honest and courageous Republicans are admitting that.
It is unfortunate that there are people like Brian who have no concern for our system of justice and who think justice is merely a fig leaf.
Posted by Truth on July 10, 2007 07:57 AMRichard Nixon set the standards and qualifications for a Republican President a good many years ago. Lawbreaking, lies, coverups, corruption, cronyism, and all the rest are the Nixon legacies which the Republican Party holds closest to its heart.
Up to now the party hacks who have followed him in the White House have just been doing their (rather pale and pathetic) best to live up to Nixonian example.
This Bush may actually be able to claim the closest approach to - or even achievement of - the goal of repeating Nixon's efforts. Because, while Nixon had to deal with a Supreme Court that was still at least somewhat oriented to the principles of the Constitution, the current Court now has a majority appointed by the subsequent Nixon imatators, and itself is now cast in a Nixonian mould. And it is far more likely to uphold the idea of "Executive Privilege" - as propounded by Nixon when he was challenged by Congress - than ever before.
The old slogan: "To the victor belong the spoils", has long been the hallmark of the Republican Party's post-campaign behavior. Nixon didn't quite succeed in getting away with it; but this Bush certainly stands a chance.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 10, 2007 08:19 AMIt is strange to me that many of the people so concerned about the President following the law are willing to tolerate massive non-enforcement of the immigration laws.
It is also not clear to me that the President has broken the law. The terminated prosecutors were all political appointees and by law Congress gets no vote on firing them. Commuting Libb'y''s jail time (but not his fine) may not have been wise, but it certainly is not illegal or unprecedented. Bush has pardoned far fewer people than almost any President.
My daughter pointed out to me that Bush is actually popular compared to Lincoln. When he was elected (with 40% of the popular vote) 7 states seceeded. Even in 1864 he only got 55% in the northern states. I think it is safe to assume that he was less popular in the southern states.
There are so many things Bush does wrong. Complaining about bogus stuff make you look like idiots.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on July 10, 2007 08:48 AMJust look at all the postive and wonderfull things the democrates have accomplished now that they have the house and senate. NOT! All they've done is bitch and moan over every stupid little thing. Giuliani was asked why he changed from democrate to republican. He replied: "The democrates want to make the world a better place, the republicans ARE making the world a better place."
Posted by TheMan on July 10, 2007 08:51 AM"Complaining about bogus stuff make you look like idiots."
Like comparing Lincoln to Bush?
Posted by on July 10, 2007 09:09 AM"The democrates want to make the world a better place, the republicans ARE making the world a better place."
Please name one thing the republic party is doing to make anyone's life better--aside from lining the pockets of the already rich.
Posted by on July 10, 2007 09:15 AMNot a single terrorist attack on US soil and multiple attacks on US soil prevented.
Posted by TheMan on July 10, 2007 09:26 AMI love it, Congress has 1-1/2 years until election time and "they can't get anything done on Illegal Immigration until after the election". If I told my boss I couldn't work on something for 1-1/2 years, I'd be up in Vail looking for one of those housekeeping jobs. Maybe we should start recall elections for the current batch of congresspeople, or better yet, sue them for job non-performance violations (I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the exact terms).
Posted by on July 10, 2007 09:37 AMWhat about the anthrax bomber, "TheMan"?
And all the prevented attacks? Oh yea - none of those "terrorists" actually had any plans for an attack. How many have been prosecuted?
Its funny how republics used to complain about an "upperdown vote". They don't seem to be complaining about it so much now that they're in the minority. Hypocracy? Nope. IOKIYAR.
Posted by Tbone on July 10, 2007 09:39 AM"Not a single terrorist attack on US soil and multiple attacks on US soil prevented."
And the Republic party is soley responsible for that, huh? That's funny, I would have thought it would be the law enforcement agencies--like the FBI. Hardly 100% rethuglicans. And, not even members of Congress...
Posted by on July 10, 2007 09:49 AMLack of terrorist attacks is not a valid measure of a successful administration.
Terrorist attacks have never been frequent occurences in the US, compared to the UK and other "super-power" nations.
By the way, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
Nice try though.
Posted by Tree Hugger on July 10, 2007 09:54 AMWow Tbone & Tree Hugger, nice job! Defending the terrorists and terrorism.
Posted by TheMan on July 10, 2007 10:08 AMYou're right, I'm just going to go ahead and give up my constitutional rights because I'm so afraid of the terrorists.
How do you bed-wetters sleep at night knowing the brown-skins are plotting to kill us all?
Posted by Tbone on July 10, 2007 10:40 AMOur troops are killing over 200 al Qada/terrorists each day yet the media never report this. Why? Because the media is liberal and cares more about politics than they do about protecting this country.
Posted by on July 10, 2007 10:41 AMummmm, Tbone.
There are muslims that ARE trying to kill you. Sorry to hit you with the truth, but if you truly believe that fascist muslims are safe to hang with, I will personally buy you a plane ticket to Iraq and a bus ticket to Baghdad. And if you will wander around alone there at night, I will then concede your point.
Sorry chucky, reality steps in and yes, Virginia, there are terrorists.
Posted by Dravur on July 10, 2007 10:45 AMTreehugger...
Of the 21 resolutions voted on by congress for the war... name one that mentions 9/11.....
Posted by Dravur on July 10, 2007 10:49 AMI dare you to read this and then tell me about what a great job this administration is doing to keep us safe...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/08/AR2007070801201_pf.html
Posted by on July 10, 2007 11:34 AMDravur:
You just proved Tbone's point. A guy states he is not willing to give up his constitutional rights, so your only retort is to label him, in a nutshell, as a terrorist supporter. Nicely done. It must be nice to be able to come up with such a clevel retort without actually having to think.
Curtailing ANY constitutional freedoms, large or small, also enables the bad guys. All of this polarization is a lousy example to the world of American democracy. I believe that it sets a poor example to the rest of the world when a person criticizes the president, and they in turn are labeled or implied as traitors, treasonous, etc.
Posted by BO on July 10, 2007 11:35 AM
The Man:
How bout that attack on 9/11 while boy George was frozen to a chair in a classroom. An attack that he was warned about months before it happened.
11:34 - Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, the bed-wetters among us will only use that article as an example of the crazy left wing drive-by media bias.
sigh.
And Dravur -
Sorry, but no muslims want to kill me personally. I even used to work side by side with a palestianian from gaza (the horror!). Funny, he never once tried to kill me. Sorry I don't buy into your fear-mongering.
And guess what? There are also CHRISTIANS that would like to kill me because of my support for a woman's right to choose, as evidenced by the all-too-common abortion clinic bombings. Its funny that these aren't treated as terrorist acts. See: David McMenemy .
Posted by Tbone on July 10, 2007 12:05 PMAnon:
"Not a single terrorist attack on US soil and multiple attacks on US soil prevented."
And the Republic party is soley responsible for that, huh? That's funny, I would have thought it would be the law enforcement agencies--like the FBI.
Would that be the FBI with the new powers granted to them by Bush? It's hard to find tangible evidence of positive accomplishments by Bush, but I think you just pointed one out. Thanks!
TBone:
"And all the prevented attacks? Oh yea - none of those "terrorists" actually had any plans for an attack."
T, you'd be saying that exact same line from the Bushhaters club had we busted the 9/11 terrorists while they were still in flight school.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "
Ben Franklin
Posted by darfor on July 10, 2007 01:08 PMDravur,
The reason I mentioned 9/11 is this:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm
The reason for the war in Iraq was because Saddam Hussein was suspected of having weapons of mass destruction.
He didn't.
Then, the reason for the war Iraq became "capturing Saddam" and "freeing the Iraqi people."
Well -- Saddam is dead now, and the Iraqis are so free that there is anarchy in the streets.
Mission accomplished. Time for our troops to come home.
(I served two tours in Iraq, byt the way. How many times have YOU been there?)
Posted by Tree Hugger on July 10, 2007 01:46 PMLets see, we have a group of people who want to learn to fly....but don't want to learn to land. And, werent some of these people in flight school on the terrorist watch list?
Then, on the other hand, we have a group of 5-6 guys that think they can take down Fort Dix by themselves?
Which seems more fishy, KW? Maybe you're right. Or not.
Posted by Tbone on July 10, 2007 02:12 PMTBone - WTC, Fort Dix, what's the dif? Either way they all seem far fetched ideas... until they succeed. Your dismissing of all attempted attacks, as you do, smells more of resistance to giving one even iota of credit to this admin for successfully thwarting the attempts.
What are your thoughts on the recent attempt in Britain? Do they seem capable of carrying out acts of terrorism?
Posted by KW on July 10, 2007 02:37 PM"It's hard to find tangible evidence of positive accomplishments by Bush".
True enough, but before you pop that shoulder out patting yourself on the back, consider this...
"The Bush administration has failed to fill roughly a quarter of the top leadership posts at the Department of Homeland Security, creating a "gaping hole" in the nation's preparedness for a terrorist attack or other threat, according to a congressional report to be released today." Heck of a job, Bushie!
Oh, that pesky, pesky oversite...
Posted by on July 10, 2007 02:40 PMAnd how many of these terrorists that the administration is catching have been prosecuted, KW? Didn't they just have to let some of guantanamo's inmates go home?
Regarding britian, no, these terrorists also seem pretty incompetent. Filling a car with jugs of gas does not make a car bomb. How about the Florida 6? They didnt even know any al-quaida, until an FBI operative pretended to be one. Or how about the guy that was going to take down the brooklyn bridge with a blow torch? The reasons these ideas seem far-fetched is because they ARE far-fetched....whereas, it would seem rather suspicious that someone wants to learn to fly and not to land.
If they wanted my credit, they could maybe implement the 9/11 commissions recommendations. You know, securing the ports and inspecting cargo, inspecting air cargo on flights, securing chemical plants, etc.
They could also find Osama....I'm sure you remember who he is. They could also take a slightly more hawkish stance against saudi arabia....but do you think that will ever happen with the bushites in office?
Posted by Tbone on July 10, 2007 03:25 PMSomeone without the self-respect to name him/her/itself said:
"Our troops are killing over 200 al Qada/terrorists each day yet the media never report this."
There's an old saying: "Don't raise more devils than you can put down." (Actually, it's from the movie "Ghostrider").
Posted by Charles B on July 10, 2007 04:35 PMIt's so easy to piss you dumocrates off. Losers
Posted by on July 10, 2007 04:48 PM"It's so easy to piss you dumocrates off. Losers"
Sure it's easy to piss people off. It's much harder to make them happy and get them to love you. Perhaps a change of strategy is in order?
Posted by Charles B on July 10, 2007 08:47 PMJust a thought:
Those trying to end our involvement in Iraq keep pointing to the fact that the inept, weak Al-Maliki government has not met a single benchmark set by our Congress.
No argument there.
But what if an outside body had set benchmarks for OUR Congress?
I suspect that they wouldn't be meeting any of them either......
Posted by RU Serious on July 10, 2007 11:26 PMRU Serious,
Probably not. But then again, OUR Congress is not the creation - out of whole cloth - of an invading and occupying armed force from overseas, either. And, as a Congress, it is not depending on that occupying amed force to keep it in office and power - while it goes on "vacation", after telling the occupying power that established it in the first place to, "get out and go home."
Also - in the case of the hypothetical outside body setting benchmarks for OUR Congress - one must take into consideration that the Administration of that hypothetical occupying armed force is not holding up OUR Congress as evidence of its "success" in "winning" the invasion and occupation; while at one and the same time criticizing it for not meeting the benchmarks that it set for the puppet regime in the first place.
Of course, with this Administration, it is always a case of "having one's cake while eaing it too" anyway. (Along with demanding that there be more cake provided all the time.)
Posted by Old Grouch on July 11, 2007 11:49 AM