Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Reid Statement
On Abu G and the gang:
This is correct. The only reason to refuse to be under oath or even have a transcript is because you plan to lie and you want to do it with impunity.
Any executive privilege claims can only theoretically potentially limit the scope of questioning, not prevent them from testifying at all. Working for the president doesn't give you magic immunity from everything.
After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys, the Bush Administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness.
This is correct. The only reason to refuse to be under oath or even have a transcript is because you plan to lie and you want to do it with impunity.
Any executive privilege claims can only theoretically potentially limit the scope of questioning, not prevent them from testifying at all. Working for the president doesn't give you magic immunity from everything.
Spat
Free campaign advice to the Clinton and Obama campaigns:
Every public disagreement, no matter how serious or valid, will be portrayed as CNN is doing it now as a trivial schoolyard "spat." As it is only March, 2007, this gives them many months to infantilize and trivialize you as much as possible. By next year, all the public will know about you is that you are very silly people who have regular temper tantrums about nothing.
Every public disagreement, no matter how serious or valid, will be portrayed as CNN is doing it now as a trivial schoolyard "spat." As it is only March, 2007, this gives them many months to infantilize and trivialize you as much as possible. By next year, all the public will know about you is that you are very silly people who have regular temper tantrums about nothing.
Cut His Mic
Bush to speak at 5:45. Fortunately that's right before Drinking Liberally, so I'll be able to dull the pain immediately after.
My bet is that this will be one of his "stamp my feet and declare I'm the decider" speeches, one of the mini-tantrums he confuses with leadership.
My bet is that this will be one of his "stamp my feet and declare I'm the decider" speeches, one of the mini-tantrums he confuses with leadership.
Broder
In response to Somerby, I didn't mean to suggest that Broder himself had been upset by Clinton's attorney firings - I didn't actually go back and check - was just referring to the general prevailing attitude in Washington that Clinton wasn't entitled to do what presidents are actually entitled to do. I threw out Broder's name because his "he trashed the place" comment encapsulated the attitude of establishment Washington fairly well, though that doesn't mean he personally endorsed every permutation of that attitude.
Threats
It takes some silly parsing to think this somehow reflects badly on Obama. One of the rhetorical tricks during the glorious summer of war was to classify a bunch of things not really capable of "mass destruction" as "weapons of mass destruction." Remember how Ricin was going to kill us all? So, poisons and nasty chemicals much less useful for killing lots of people than an automatic weapon were suddenly transformed into existential threats.
I too assumed that Saddam had something which could be classifed as a chemical weapon - say a bucket of bleach sitting next to a bucket of ammonia - though I also thought there was no evidence that Saddam had anything which could be in any way thought of as an actual threat to the US in any way. The issue was never really "does Saddam have WMDs as currently defined?" But, "is Saddam a threat to us?" The answer to the latter was obviously no, no matter how many industrial cleaning agents might be in the possession of the Iraqi government.
I too assumed that Saddam had something which could be classifed as a chemical weapon - say a bucket of bleach sitting next to a bucket of ammonia - though I also thought there was no evidence that Saddam had anything which could be in any way thought of as an actual threat to the US in any way. The issue was never really "does Saddam have WMDs as currently defined?" But, "is Saddam a threat to us?" The answer to the latter was obviously no, no matter how many industrial cleaning agents might be in the possession of the Iraqi government.
Arlen Specter Wankerectomy Act of 2007 Passes Senate
Otherwise known as no longer letting Abu G appoint attorneys without Senate confirmation.
They Do Testify
As Think Progress notes, White House aides have testified to Congress plenty of times.
Sucks to be a Congressman
Adam B directs us to this article focusing largely on the busy schedules of Patrick Murphy and Joe Sestak.
It's never to early to consider ways in which you can help. I've set up ActBlue pages for incumbents and for challengers.
It's never to early to consider ways in which you can help. I've set up ActBlue pages for incumbents and for challengers.
Middling
Fitzgerald's rating by Kyle Sampson had been blacked out. Now we know why.
Mary Jo White, who supervised Fitzgerald when she served as the U.S. attorney in Manhattan and who has criticized the firings, said ranking him as a middling prosecutor "lacks total credibility across the board."
"He is probably the best prosecutor in the nation — certainly one of them," said White, who worked in the Clinton and Bush administrations. "It casts total doubt on the whole process. It's kind of the icing on the cake."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)