Political Discussions
Rove and Myers to testify
Posted by satijournal • 3/04/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: bush, obama, politics, rove
Chairman Conyers issued the following statement:
"I have long said that I would see this matter through to the end and am encouraged that we have finally broken through the Bush Administration's claims of absolute immunity. This is a victory for the separation of powers and congressional oversight. It is also a vindication of the search for truth. I am determined to have it known whether U.S. Attorneys in the Department of Justice were fired for political reasons, and if so, by whom."
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/04/karl-rove-agrees-to-testi_n_171945.html
He's going to testify in private, but at least he'll be under oath and there will be a transcript.
'Bout damn time!
User Comments
-
Also in the news, republicans are making the case for prosecuting Bush officials:
Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking committee Republican, after noting his previous support for judicial review of the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program, referred to the recent disclosures of Office of Legal Counsel memos as potentially supporting the case for prosecutions.
“You’ve had some rather startling disclosures, with the publicity in recent days about unusual—to put it mildly—legal opinions” to justify broad executive actions, including homicide. “They’re all being exposed now,” he said, and noted that a forthcoming report from the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department will likely expose even more. They’re “starting to tread on what may disclose criminal conduct,” he said.
Rather than going off “helter-skelter” and conducting a “fishing expedition,” said Specter, “it seems to me that we ought to follow a regular order here … If there’s reason to believe that these justice department officials have given approval for things that they know not to be lawful and sound, go after them.”
washingtonindependent.com/32406/republicans-make-a-case-for-prosecuting-bus... -
Does anyone actually care at this point? The whole thing is based on party lines so we all know there's another motive behind all of this. It's all part of the new liberal regime.-
Party lines... as in within Bush's own party? What do you think that Specter is trying to become the new face of the Republican Party? More likely he is trying to show that some elements within the party still have credibility. -
I'm an independent and I care. America is a concept based on laws and liberty. Bush and congress for the past 8 years have steered us in a direction that is incredibly un-American. We must undo the damage and work to prevent such actions happen again in the future. Part of undoing the damage is for Bush, people in his administration and (my wish) congress to be investigated. If they are found guilty, they need to be punished according to law. -
This is not about policy differences. It's about the law. Breaking the law and politicizing the Justice Department is not a partisan issue, nor do opinions on this topic break down along neat party lines.
As a would-be "conservative" (to me you're more of a right-wing radical, jhixon2) under a Democratic administration, you would do well to remember that the same laws that should have protected citizens from an overreaching administration under Bush are supposed to do the same thing under the Obama administration. Getting to the bottom of this mess is as much in Republican as Democratic interests.
-
-
Talk about ruining America, Obama is throwing it to the trash heap with an un-American style of Government that would have Washington turning over in his grave. So by "right wing" you mean I don't like big government and instead giving more power to the people, having more power to the states and implementing tax cuts for everyone. You would be correct.
Unless you haven't figured out, the further you go to the right it means the less government you want. As for you, I consider you a radical socialist you so far to the left. We can play that game.
Still nobody with a brain cares about the situation because it is led by democratic elite members.-
"So by "right wing" you mean I don't like big government and instead giving more power to the people, having more power to the states and implementing tax cuts for everyone. You would be correct."
What exactly does "big government" mean in your mind? I ask because Bush radically expanded the size of the federal government, and radically expanded the intrusions the federal government could make into the lives of American citizens. I can't recall the federal government ever having been bigger than it got with the development of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act and all of the related executive orders that gave the Bush administration broad authority to investigate Americans, freeze their assets and otherwise meddle in their lives. -
Please define what you mean by an "un-american style of government." I understand that there are members of the administration that have advocated things that i find abhorent (though I have not heard Obama himself claim those ideas). That being said, I don't think most conservatives have a clue about what those ideas are. I'm certainly not saying that I think that you would like them any better, but in order to have an intelligent dialogue we ought to address what they are (and what they aren't). here is what I've gleaned from reading from "Progressive Policy Institute," "Third Way," Books by Neo-Progressives like Rahm Emmanuel and some others that don't immediately come to mind and along with educated speculation based on correllations between the backgrounds and policies of more than one cabinet member (the connection to the microcredit movement). I freely invite anyone to check this stuff out. Mind you that this is what I have gathered and may not paint a complete picture. If there were greater transpearency, I would not even have to dig into this. As far as I can tell this is the secret platform behind the destruction of our financial sector/nationalization/stiffling the business cycle with a drawn-out bureaucratic solution. Mind you that this comes from a moderate liberal, not some right wing talking head. I hope that I'm wrong in my analysis, but I fear that I have evatuated correctly. And no, conservatives this can not be called socialism in the conventional sense but rather Institutional Mutualism:
1) The developement a Solidarity based financial sector. A sort of hybrid between conventional credit unions and Yunus-style micro-credit.
2) The developement of a Workfare State. As outright compulsion is surely not politic, the financial necessity to take part will be created partially by economic developements, and partially by fearmongering of future developements. This will allow for government programs that might not be financially feasable. Although labor will be only marginally compensated, the programs will still be very costly. Funding and volunteer compliance will be "sold" to the public under the guise of economic necessity and the repetitive theme of solidarity... or "Serving one another in the common purpose of remaking America"*
3) An expanded foreign humanitarian corps, to back up the foreign policy goals of expanding what Robert Gates calls "Soft Power" and what Hillary Clinton calls "Smart Power."
4) The eventual conscription of some segment of the population to suppliment objectives "2)" and "3)." This will ead to a simplification of universal health coverage which will begin to shift to a largescale expansion of the Vetrans Administration.
5) The expansion of "Soft Power" to "underserved" nations. this will be done for the purpose of enhancing National Security, by reducing the draw of terrorist fanaticism and increasing stability.
Now mind you these are lofty goals, and are surely undertaken with the best of intentions, however history tells us that lofty intentions never fully succeed, and usually end up leading to tyranny. Any thoughts out there on this? -
By unAmerican I meant that I personally think we are drifting away from the founding fathers of limited government and going instead to more foreign styles of government like socialism. I know we probably won't ever fully be socialist, but i feel we are moving in that direction.
-
right. what i described is not european style social-democracy. If I am to any extent correct, it is much more intrusive into the individual sphere.
-
I also do agree with the lofty goals lead to tyranny part. That is very true, I think their intentions are good, but to much control by government leads to big heads and decisions that may not be good for the country, but a instead a few individuals.
-
yes, it does currently seem to be benefitting the failed bankers. It seems likely that the "old money" that modern aristoi will be left unintruded upon
-
-
Did I ever say I supported Bush's spending plan or anything fiscally in that matter? I support the Republicans because they believe in less government than Obama and the Democrats are proving they like now. It is not a very small margin though between a Republican and a Democrat when it comes to government size. No Bush isn't a conservative, that is obvious. Republicans aren't conservatives either they are big government Republicans. There are basically no conservatives in Congress at this point. Big government in my mind means they have their hands in everything and trying to fix everything.
-
Your the one that said I never answer any questions. I was answering Madamex's.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
