IBC
03-23-2007, 02:01 PM
about Clinton and 93 attorneys in the article posted on Conservative View Vegas. Why don't you explain the difference to us? Was the Clinton the first to fire attorneys at the beginning of his administration> Oh, that is commonplace? Is that talking point then a bit misleading? Were Bushs' firings in 2000? Oh they weren't? When were they? What about the Patriot Act? (don't you love that name? It would've been better if it was called "sign here or you love terrorists act"). Were there any provisions in it for this? Don't the new attorneys have to be Senate confirmed? I know, why is this even a story? Harriet Miers would've been a really awesome Supreme Court Justice by the way. Oh, and these guys got really bad performance reviews didn't they? Wait, they didn't? Oh, but they (and I quote) "weren't good Bushies". Why no mention of the fact that these guys were prosecuting Repubs?
Oh, but the WH is being extraordinarily open and honest about this. After all, they are willing to grant an interview. (no transcript, no press, no oath). After all, if we were to actually write down what they said it would be a spectacle wouldn't it? Well, I salute you George. I salute you Tony Snow. BTW Tony, remember writing this?---
Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.
One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.
Oh, but the WH is being extraordinarily open and honest about this. After all, they are willing to grant an interview. (no transcript, no press, no oath). After all, if we were to actually write down what they said it would be a spectacle wouldn't it? Well, I salute you George. I salute you Tony Snow. BTW Tony, remember writing this?---
Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.
One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.