Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Taylor Walking Fine Line in Testimony

It took just nine minutes into the question-and-answer session this morning for Sara M. Taylor to make her first "very-clear-letter" reference. The former White House political director, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee about its ongoing investigation into the firings last year of U.S. attorneys, was asked whether she had ever spoken directly to President Bush about the dismissals.

"I have a very clear letter from Mr. Fielding," Taylor began at 10:40 a.m., pointing to the letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding that has "directed" Taylor not to testify about internal deliberations and external communications while she worked in the West Wing.

Then Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) tried to ask about any meetings with the president on the prosecutorial firings. "Again, I have a letter," she said. Was she aware of any decision documents signed by the president, Leahy inquired. "Again, I've been asked not to comment," Taylor replied.

And so it's going this morning at a packed hearing inside the tiny hearing room of the Judiciary Committee. Taylor is trying to thread the legal needle of honoring the committee's subpoena commanding her appearance to testify about the matter, but at the same time honoring Bush and Fielding's broad request that she not answer specific questions that they believe would violate executive privilege.

Fact-based questions are actually fair game, not something that can be shuttered away by the privilege letter. So, a question asking if she ever spoke to someone about a matter is ostensibly answerable, but what the contents of the conversation were are off limits.

In the first hour of questions, Taylor cited the letter at least a dozen times. But, after a 30-minute break for a vote on an Iraq war amendment, Leahy reconvened the meeting and reminded her about what sort of questions she could and couldn't answer. At that point he asked the same three questions about Bush again, and she realized she had to answer: and the answers were 'no' to all three, she'd never spoken to Bush or been in any meetings with him about the U.S. attorney issue, nor were there any presidential signing documents that she's aware of.

It's a tough act for Taylor today. In reality, she's under no obligation to honor the White House request, she faces no possible sanction if she answered every question openly and truthfully and there's no legal fallout for her. (If presidential claims of executive privilege were iron clad regarding former White House staff, the nonfiction aisles of bookstores would be barren, with no aides-turned-authors writing at length about their Oval Office meetings.) However, for someone who is currently without a job, she might hurt her career advancement if she were to spill all the beans about all her conversations with the president, undercutting the idea that she's a loyal Republican.

"I admire his unflinching devotion to do what he always believes is right for the country," Taylor said in her opening statement.

Democrats had been hoping she would testify about the role White House advisers -- particularly her immediate boss, top political adviser Karl Rove -- played in crafting the plan to fire the prosecutors. E-mails between Taylor and Justice Department officials showed her political office was involved in the run-up to the firings.

She has huddled for about a half-dozen sidebars with her attorney, W. Neil Eggleston, who has been given the unusual privilege of sitting next to his client at the witness table, discussing whether those questions fall under the claims of the Fielding letter.

Of the questions she has answered, Taylor revealed these details:

• She did not resign from the White House because of this scandal. "At my age, almost 33, I have additional career goals."
• She doesn't recall any communications from political operatives in any of the states of the fired prosecutors, which has been cited as a central accusation connected to the firings of at least two prosecutors. "Senator, I don't remember what I had for breakfast last week," she told Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.).
• She was "upset greatly" when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales decided not to submit interim U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin of Little Rock for full Senate confirmation. Arkansas senators opposed the nomination on the grounds that he was inserted into the slot under a now-stricken law allowing indefinite appointments for interim prosecutors. Griffin was a former Rove deputy working underneath Taylor in the political shop. "We had pulled, in my view, the rug out from under Tim Griffin."
• She apologized, somewhat, for calling Bud Cummins "lazy" in an e-mail to Justice officials blasting them for the handling of the fallout of the scandal. Cummins was the prosecutor who was ousted in favor of Griffin. "That was an unnecessary comment," she said.

By Paul Kane  |  July 11, 2007; 12:37 PM ET
Categories:  Hearing Watch  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Weaver Always Spent Big on McCain's Behalf
Next: Specter: Taylor Can't Come Out a 'Winner'

Comments

this is digusting...are we talking about the U.S? or the former U.S.S.R.??..just the fact that they are stonewalling at every juncture shows they have something to hide ...guilty as charged

Posted by: a canadian | July 11, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Convenient memory laps, upset about not being loyal to the Rovian appointee. The Bushie kool-aid drinkers are clueless. They actually don't see anything wrong with The Party and The Government being the same thing. Politics before Science, Politics before the Law, Politics before Justice! Loyalty to The Leader above all!! This is insanity, Impeach these Ideologues.

Posted by: thebob.bob | July 11, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

So Ms. Taylor CAN spill "all the beans" that she knows about this "elected" Bush Administration, right?

Her "former" boss, GW, and his CLAIM only of his "executive PRIVILEGE"(to again COVER-UP the Voters CAGING Lists, and Attorney-Gate's CRIMINAL attempts, nationwide, to STEAL "elections," Nationwide, on the part of KARL ROVE, namely, most INFAMOUSLY) can NOT by "Law" no matter what Junior Bus$h raves about in his edicts, be barred from giving her full and HONEST testimony re: this Nationwide effort by Bush White House, to STEAL the National "Elections," AGAIN, in 2008.
But, she IS a Republican, right? A loyal BUSH II 'Republican," as well. So that NIXES that! SHE shall never give either Conyers' or Leahy's committees the full and honest TRUTH!(*That's NOW THE Five Letter, Cuss, "Dirty" word["truth" is] to Repubs$ and "Libertarians$", ie LIBERTICIDAL Corporatists$, and Pro-WAR PROFITEERS$$, they all be, quite sad they be, even more TRAGIC is what these CRIMINAL SCUMLORDS$, and their "rhetoric," and "thoughts$$$$$," have done to our FORMER Nation-State, "America.")

Posted by: Mars Mann | July 11, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Impeach them? Good start. Then arrest them, seize 100% of the assets gained through their actions during this administration that benefitted their various "family" firms, like the Carlyle Group, try and convict them of treason ... that's what this crowd deserves, nothing less.

Posted by: seeingeyeseesall | July 11, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Is she one of those graduates from Regency College who is supposed to be a christian and who was put in the white house to pursue conservative agenda? Scary, indeed. Where are all the real christians?

Posted by: Carol Bohrman | July 11, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

These people are thumbing their noses at the law and using loopholes of a dubious nature to circumvent it. They should be vigorously brought to task and in some cases impeached.

Posted by: harebob | July 11, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Liberal CRYBABIES!

Get a fricken clue. Why wasn't Clinton's entire staff "questioned" after he fired more federal employees than Bush?

Probably because Liberals know they are wrong. The only way for them to look good is to try to bring Bush down.


BUSH IS STILL PRESIDENT!!! You LIBERAL RETARDS!!

Posted by: Libtard Tools Suck | July 11, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

These so-called leaders deserve impeachment for all the high crimes and misdemeanours they have committed. The underlings who stonewall investigation of the law-breaking should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Posted by: harebob | July 11, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Liberal CRYBABIES!

Get a fricken clue. Why wasn't Clinton's entire staff "questioned" after he fired more federal employees than Bush?

Probably because Liberals know they are wrong. The only way for them to look good is to try to bring Bush down.


BUSH IS STILL PRESIDENT!!! You LIBERAL RETARDS!!

Posted by: Libtard Tools Suck | July 11, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

She can't remember what she had for breakfast because IT DOESN'T MATTER.

I can't remember what I had for breakfast last week either, but I bet I'd remember some of the details from WHEN I WAS UNDERMINING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES a few months ago.

Posted by: Arlington, VA | July 11, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

No offense, but all of you never read the constitution or the laws of Exec Privelege. Furthermore, I doubt you even looked into Clinton's administration exec privelege "cover ups". Thank God, all of you are so blinded by your rage of party politics, you fail to see the law behind it or for that matter, even study the legalities. I am proud to have people like you with no clue about the Untied States of America, vote for my Presidents. Great job to the clueless uneducated rabble of America.

Posted by: Mig | July 11, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

It does seem that the only way to get our country back (if that is even possible these days) is to impeach and arrest the whole lot of them.

Posted by: jerry | July 11, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

seems that the people so upset about the fireings of the attorneys have a very short memory. If I remember Clinton did a mass fireing when he went into office. Oh well high gas prises and other problems seems to have dropped off the radar screen.

Posted by: G.A. Powell | July 11, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

seems that the people so upset about the fireings of the attorneys have a very short memory. If I remember Clinton did a mass fireing when he went into office. Oh well high gas prises and other problems seems to have dropped off the radar screen.

Posted by: G.A. Powell | July 11, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

seems that the people so upset about the fireings of the attorneys have a very short memory. If I remember Clinton did a mass fireing when he went into office. Oh well high gas prises and other problems seems to have dropped off the radar screen.

Posted by: G.A. Powell | July 11, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Sara M. Taylor is obstructing justice, just like the rest of them. She should be ashamed. I hope she remains unemployed for a long, long, long time. In fact, I wish the worst for all the people who have contributed to this administration, the blood on their hands from this war, the illegal wiretapping, the torture is so UNAMERICAN, it makes me sick. They are SICK and should be totally ashamed. Maybe their god will forgive them, but I certainly won't.

Posted by: mommywommy | July 11, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Its wonderful to see all of these "informed" opinions. Have anyone ever heard of executive priviledge or seperation of powers? Clinton pulled this left and right and none of the Democrats blinked an eye, the only hypocrites are the ones demanding impeachment or worse. Pathetic.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 11, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Its wonderful to see all of these "informed" opinions. Have anyone ever heard of executive priviledge or seperation of powers? Clinton pulled this left and right and none of the Democrats blinked an eye, the only hypocrites are the ones demanding impeachment or worse. Pathetic.

Posted by: Don W | July 11, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

So what exactly would the penalty be for Ms. Taylor if she decided to comply with the subpoena and testify honestly and truthfully? What is the penalty for disobeying the President when one is no longer employed by the Whitehouse? Could Congress offer her immunity? I imagine that she was threatened with regard to those "additional career goals" she has. It's really too bad that nobody in this country has the courage to really oppose the illegal activities of this administration. No balls at all. No heroes left. Sad little country.

Posted by: Julia | July 11, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

NO ONE DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED.

Posted by: REPUBLICANS SUCKASS | July 11, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse


I think it is beyond belief,
that Bush thinks he is operating a Monarchy.

Posted by: bob | July 11, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Sara Taylor is merely another example of Republican loyalist hacks who were elevated to positions of authority over more qualified and senior individuals. The Justice Dept. has been "Brownied" under Bush like so many other agencies. Is there no wonder from Republicans why everything this White House touches gets screwed up?

Posted by: Tommy T. | July 11, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Revolution, anyone? Obviously, Congress is not doing anything to impeach. It's the people's constitutional responsibility to overthrow an unjust government. If we hold our breath for Congress to act, we'll die.

Posted by: nejlepsihest | July 11, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Listen carefully, Libtard Tools Suck. The next president will be a Dem and likely a liberal. What happens in these hearing will determine whether or not Congress will be able to exercise any sort of check on him. Or her, as the case may be. Are you sure that's where you want this to go?

Posted by: refgirl. | July 11, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if I'm more upset by the lies of this administration or the way the democrats are allowing this to happen to our government.

Posted by: John | July 11, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

My word, have any of you ever studied US War History. How blind are you? It is like going back to the 1960's. How about this notion, why don't you read the constitution; sep of powers; and exec priveleges before you post? I have never imagined everyone would be so ill conceived. Is our great nation really down to the idiots of America. I am guessing this is why only about 5% of Americans can name all 50 states and 1% of Americans can name all the US Presidents.

I guess I should be happy, as long as you are all uneducated or not willing to study anything relevant to the article, there is no chance for leftists in the future.

Posted by: Mig | July 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

And don't forget, Clinton fired every single federal attorney when he came into office and there was not one single hearing about it. You liberal morons are the reason this country has the problems it does, your so blinded by your hatred that you don't see your own parties destructive behaviors and hypocricy. Bush's actions in this case were completely legal and have full precedence(that means its been done before and is accepted practice, for all of you liberal whackjobs). Clinton was impeached because he ACTUALLY lied and was caught, over and over and over...

Posted by: Don W | July 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

What did we expect? THEY WERE going to allow Ms.Taylor to speak? Get real!
PLUS, EVEN IF SHE WANTED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, IT WOULD MEAN BEING BLACK-BALLED FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE. TO WORK, SHE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

Posted by: John, NYC | July 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

What did we expect? THEY WERE going to allow Ms.Taylor to speak? Get real!
PLUS, EVEN IF SHE WANTED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, IT WOULD MEAN BEING BLACK-BALLED FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE. TO WORK, SHE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

Posted by: John, NYC | July 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

What did we expect? THEY WERE going to allow Ms.Taylor to speak? Get real!
PLUS, EVEN IF SHE WANTED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, IT WOULD MEAN BEING BLACK-BALLED FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE. TO WORK, SHE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

Posted by: John, NYC | July 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand how executive privilege can apply to a former employee. Her only "privilege" as I see it, is being a member of the republican party who wants to further her career. If she does not answer the questions, hold her in contempt of Congress and lock her up. Perhaps some jail time will help her memory.

Posted by: Orlon | July 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

What did we expect? THEY WERE going to allow Ms.Taylor to speak? Get real!
PLUS, EVEN IF SHE WANTED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, IT WOULD MEAN BEING BLACK-BALLED FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE. TO WORK, SHE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

Posted by: John, NYC | July 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

What did we expect? THEY WERE going to allow Ms.Taylor to speak? Get real!
PLUS, EVEN IF SHE WANTED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, IT WOULD MEAN BEING BLACK-BALLED FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE. TO WORK, SHE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

Posted by: John, NYC | July 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

What did we expect? THEY WERE going to allow Ms.Taylor to speak? Get real!
PLUS, EVEN IF SHE WANTED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, IT WOULD MEAN BEING BLACK-BALLED FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE. TO WORK, SHE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

Posted by: John, NYC | July 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

What did we expect? THEY WERE going to allow Ms.Taylor to speak? Get real!
PLUS, EVEN IF SHE WANTED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, IT WOULD MEAN BEING BLACK-BALLED FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE. TO WORK, SHE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

Posted by: John, NYC | July 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I cant believe that Taylor "admire's his unflinching devotion to do what he always believes is right for the country,". Has she been paying any attention to all of the craziness that has been going on for the last 7 years?

Posted by: PadresFan | July 11, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

The comments by Mars Mann are downright scary! This guy has a real mental problem. I know the Dems and liberals don't like President Bush but some of the comments they post reveal a serious mental disorder rather than a political opinion! Al Gibbs

Posted by: Al Gibbs | July 11, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Clinton cleaned house upon entering the White House. All Presidents do this with each term. The fact that GW started cleaning mid term has raised eye brows. Do your home work before you start calling people Liberal retards...

Posted by: Cstewart | July 11, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand the "Bush's people can get away with X because Clinton did Y" logic.

The implication becomes "we should be allowed to get away with anything because someone else might have". This is not the way to run a government for the people, by the people.

One of the things that HASN'T been widely reported in the whole Libby debacle is that in the comparisons of Libby's commutation (and likely later pardon) to Rich's pardon by Clinton is that to get to that point Rich needed aggressive attorneys advocating for his pardon.

Who was Rich's laywer? Scooter Libby, of course.

What goes around comes around.

Posted by: ursomniac | July 11, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

nejlepsihest - what a great idea!


I would like to see the Western states like CA/OR/WA/AZ/ID/MT Secede from the US. You know what? The Red states would be totally @$#*'ed.

Part of the problem is that we've allowed our media to expand it's limits and now "local media" or smaller media reporting is squeezed out. Just TRY to find unbiased reporting. It does not exist. This is what the republican capitalists like Rupert Murdoch know, that they have a monopoly on the media and they use it to produce slander and lies, supporting the republican "agenda" to downsize our liberties and destroy the constitution.

The democrats just don't seem to "get" it, seeing as how Clinton initiated the bill that allowed conglomerate media to be "unlimited" in its purchase and ownership. Don't believe me? Just try to get yourself a low-powered radio station. Hello? Katrina anyone? Not only is it not safe to have no local reporting, it means that the propaganda machines are spinning 24:7.

Posted by: mommywommy | July 11, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Look at what happened to the crooked Chinese food and drug czar. A cabinet official like this under George Bush would merely resign and immediately be hired as a lobbyist by the very same corporations who influenced public policy. It may be time to adminsiter some tough Chinese justive to Bush loyalists who have so corrupted Washington.

Posted by: Tommy T. | July 11, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Clinton fired them at the beginning of his term as most new administrations do. This admin, was trying to change the outcome of elections by placing "their" people in places that they were afraid of losing the elections in. Did we forget that elections are supposed to be fair? People will vote, majority wins? Your not supposed to affect the outcome of these things, redistricting, scaring people in districts that you may lose not to vote. Righties who think "win at all costs", I'll be waiting for you in HELL...

Posted by: JC | July 11, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

there's a big difference between firing midterm and firing when first assuming office.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402194.html

get your facts straight.
Clinton did not do a midterm firing -and this is not the first massive firing that Bush has done.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/08/bush_removal_ended_guam_investigation/

Posted by: kc | July 11, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how uninformed the conservative posters are about the DOJ and the use of executive privilege. This administration's transgressions are so grevious they cannot simply point to Clinton anymore and think they can get away with everything. At least Clinton was willing to be put under oath which is more than you can say about anyone in the Bush regime.

Posted by: Bill L. | July 11, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

All of you make it too easy, one I am not Republican nor a Democract. I am more than likely a conservative liberal with an open mind, but this post takes the cake. Thank you for proving what I said throughout my posts. Truly, thank you.

Why not adopt communism like China, I mean afterall they have a great many freedoms? All of you make this so easy.

"Look at what happened to the crooked Chinese food and drug czar. A cabinet official like this under George Bush would merely resign and immediately be hired as a lobbyist by the very same corporations who influenced public policy. It may be time to adminsiter some tough Chinese justive to Bush loyalists who have so corrupted Washington."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 11, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Well, LTS, Clinton fired the US attorneys when he took office, as ALWAYS happens when the presidential power changes parties. Bush did exactly the same. Not one "liberal" has protested this or objected to it. This is inherent in the office changing hands.

HOWEVER, it is totally illegal to use the US attorney's office, or for that matter any power of the presidential offices, to promote a single political party or to use it to break the law. The laws, incidentally are passed by Congress and signed by the President, which is an AGREEMENT that all parts of the Federal System are bound by those laws.

If the Federal Attorneys were indeed removed to put in place people who would "go after" Democrats, then that is against the law and most certainly grounds for impeachment proceedings and legal proceedings to follow.

As far as I'm concerned, this is moot, the Federal Attorneys have indeed been used for policial advantage as witness the recent immigration debate. If the federal legal apparatus was not ordered to ignore the law, we would not even be having that debate. The presence of an illegal alien inside the United States is wholly a Federal matter, border security is wholly a Federal matter, and the US attorneys office is in CHARGE of such matters inside their district.

Therefore, the US attorneys have used their offices for political ends (doing favors for the businesses in the SouthWest that depend on illegal below minimum wage workers) and the orders for this had to come from the top (since it is the same everywhere) and therefore Bush should be impeached.

Try to twist that, you twit.

Posted by: MadSat | July 11, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

I love Don W's attempt to equate Libby's participation in a scheme that outed a covert CIA agent to Clinton's lying about sex. Unfortunately many Repubs are so uptight about sex that they really do think Clinton's sexual foibles rose to the standard of impeachment. But hey, cut the Repubs misfits some slack for undermining America's homeland security.

Posted by: "Blue Dot" Tommy T. | July 11, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you Al Gibbs but what would you expect from someone who calls himself "Mars Mann". Most of the liberal Post readership are brain-dead liberals like him. The U.S. Attorneys serve at the "pleasure" of the President and Attorney General PERIOD. They can be fired and replaced for anything or nothing. It's that simple but the libs just don't get it.

Posted by: Ralph Foden | July 11, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

oh, oh, oh, what a sorry state you lot truly are (read = the entirety of the united pitiful states of america).

no need to look at congress and the executive branch to see what's wrong with this sorry mess, just look to the comments.

christians, parties, politics, constitution, liberals, right-wingers, it's all meaningless mess.

let the anarchy begin!

Posted by: dick | July 11, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious, and shameful at the same time. Every right-wing Neo-Con that has responded can only revert back to Clinton in their half-witted response. Far as Sara Taylor goes, indict here, find her guilty of conspiracy and send her forgetful 32 year old ass to the joint. I bet she'll remember then.
This administration is as criminal as they come.

Posted by: Rex | July 11, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

MadSat: Twist - That is even a legal argument, since you used the all knowing "if" clause. Any president regardless of party affiliation can fire, replace, remove, anyone they appoint at any time. Yes, there is an if, but come on, do you really believe that there is no political motivation and a clear separation of powers. There is in every case, but I somehow doubt this would have caused the firings.

I would say defend any president, Dem or Cons, that would have to go through this rabble of politicking from Congress.

Why doesn't someone post an actual law that can be backed, instead of assuming without knowing.

Posted by: Mig | July 11, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Ralph, Fed employees can be fired for a good reason or a bad reason, but NOT for an illegal reason. Check it out, dude. There are discrimanation laws in this country. Bushies all LIE through through their well polished teeth. It seems to be the requirement for Bush loyalty.

Posted by: Julia | July 11, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Julia: Oh my, how deep can we get without knowledge. How about this one; can any president remove appointed employees? If you can answer that questions, please send a post.

Posted by: Mig | July 11, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Last post from me, I would like everyone to remember how great our country was in the past. We were a shining beacon of hope, freedom, and properity. Other countries envied us, we were the best country. You know why, because the patriortisms and Americaness of all the citizens. Our country is in a sad state, but it is not because of Congress or the President, liberal or conservative, it is because we forgot how truly great our country is world. Try to remember and stand up for America, something greater than yourself.

Posted by: Mig | July 11, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Last post from me, I would like everyone to remember how great our country was in the past. We were a shining beacon of hope, freedom, and properity. Other countries envied us, we were the best country. You know why, because the patriortisms and Americaness of all the citizens. Our country is in a sad state, but it is not because of Congress or the President, liberal or conservative, it is because we forgot how truly great our country is world. Try to remember and stand up for America, something greater than yourself. Our country is not a president or even the people of the country; our country is the ideology and framework of an oppressed people to do something great, to stand up against the oppressors, but now look at us. We could take the world by storm, but we sit and squabble over these issues. Remember America the Beautiful!

Posted by: Mig | July 11, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Last post from me, I would like everyone to remember how great our country was in the past. We were a shining beacon of hope, freedom, and properity. Other countries envied us, we were the best country. You know why, because the patriortisms and Americaness of all the citizens. Our country is in a sad state, but it is not because of Congress or the President, liberal or conservative, it is because we forgot how truly great our country is world. Try to remember and stand up for America, something greater than yourself. Our country is not a president or even the people of the country; our country is the ideology and framework of an oppressed people to do something great, to stand up against the oppressors, but now look at us. We could take the world by storm, but we sit and squabble over these issues. Remember America the Beautiful!

Posted by: Mig | July 11, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

President Bush is more powerful than the Senators. Ha! Ha! American's Democracy is stumbling. How can the U.S. promote Democracy to the countries like Burma,Iraq,East Timor......? Dog eats Dog.Corrupt accuses Corrupt. Bush accused Sadam bad. All the dictators and old communists are clapping their hands and will question Mr.Bush. Burmese people want Democracy but now they are dying at the hands of Chinese half-communists as they are neglected by the Democratic countries like the U.S.I don't think Bush has the same spirit of the founders of the U.S Presidents like George Wahington,John Adams, Thomas Jefferson,or world-respected Abraham Lincoln.You Americans act now or your democracy will be surrounded by the joint hands of dictators and ex-communists.
Maungreel, Bangkok

Posted by: Maungreel, Bangkok | July 11, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

All president's fire the previous administrations AG's. Firing a significant number of AG's mid-way thru a term has never been done before...by ANY president.

Can't wait to hear Bush's indignation when Iran, et al, picks up a few Americans for "national security" purposes and never brings offical charges against them. How can we say anyhtjing when our appointed government does the same thing?

Posted by: MP | July 11, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

All president's fire the previous administrations AG's. Firing a significant number of AG's mid-way thru a term has never been done before...by ANY president.

Can't wait to hear Bush's indignation when Iran, et al, picks up a few Americans for "national security" purposes and never brings offical charges against them. How can we say anyhtjing when our appointed government does the same thing?

Posted by: MP | July 11, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Privalege has it's limits: Nixon claimed privalege and SCOTUS made him turn over the tapes and then Dick slithered out of the Whitehouse. I wonder if Bush has practiced his Nixon exit, you know the one at the plane doors throwing the victory/peace sign? Man, it's hard to believe we are more messed up than we were back then.

What are they hiding? We have a right to know. Impeach now - Speaker Pelosi, if you won't do it, Cindy will.

Posted by: texasdem | July 11, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Mig -- buy a clue.

Better yet -- I'll give you one for free. Go read the actual constitution instead of the brain-dead wingnut websites you frequent. Then read the Federalist Papers. All of them. Reread as needed.

Maybe then you'll understand that these hearings are exactly what makes America a beacon for the rest of the world -- even when we fail to be great.

Posted by: AJ | July 11, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

HOLD THEM IN CONTEMPT YOU WIMPY DEMS!

Posted by: silence | July 11, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Taylor, your salary was paid by the American tax payer, not by the President of the United States. You probably took the same oath that every person who works for the United States. You owe your allegiance to the United States, not to the treasonous, facsist Bush Administration. TELL THE TRUTH. TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE.

Don't be a traitor of the United States of America.

Posted by: Donna, Bremerton, WA | July 11, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

The republicans want it both ways. If they have nothing to hide they should be put under oath and cross examined the same as they did to Clinton.

I've posted on many blogs both right and left and am always startled at how ignorant the wingnuts are, not only the the Constitution but U.S. History as well.

Posted by: Bill L | July 11, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Mr. C wouldn't have stood for this. Just remember when Joannie loved Chachi.

Posted by: Jo Jo | July 11, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Its nice to see Sen. Leahy show the true colors of a liberal democrat. Intimidate and try and harass the weakest person you can find. The old saying pick on somebody your own size comes to mind. What a bully, and against a 33 year old woman yet.

Posted by: radage | July 11, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

At this point I really think that what we are all up against supersedes partisan politics. This administration has hijacked the USA. Any reasonable individual can look at Iraq and the events leading up and realize without much introspection that we were lead to it. The Surgeon General has indicated he was muzzled, the DOJ has been manipulated as a political howitzer and staffed by 5th rate attorneys from a faith-based law school, we've got poison food coming from China but Canadian drugs from American pharmaceutical companies are "unsafe", health care is unaffordable as are college educations, we're all being spied on and wiretapped, they can't find Bin Laden, money is flooding to KBR's coffers and our deficit is through the roof.

Anyone who spends time defending the current administration is the true pathetic soul.

Posted by: mks310 | July 11, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I love the RIght-wing-nut-job who says 'Liberal Retards'! This idiot should get his head out of his ass and wake up! Bush is a criminal, Cheney is a criminal - there's no debate. The firings hearings are prelude to the real heart of the matter, which is WHY these prosecuters were fired, which is because they would not BREAK THE LAW and throw charges at innocent people in order to cover up Bush-Co stealing the 2000 and 2004 elections, which ther is PROOF of. Get that RIGHT-WING NUTS - PROOF, EVIDENCE - something your guys don't like and will do anything to ensure it does not see mass circulation. BTW - ask yourself why Tim Griffin resigned the day after Greg Palast turned over his evidence of vote fixing, caging lists and the facist Bushies for the last elections and the steps that were being taken for 2008 to do the same, to the Congressional commitees. 2008's gonna be a banner year for cleaning house of you neo-con, facist, Republican pieces of @#$%!!!

Posted by: RaptureNinjaTurtle | July 11, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

IMO, those of you who have to sink to verbal attacks to prove your point, whether you are republican or democratic, are extremely insecure about your beliefs and values. If we are going to debate this topic, could we please do so in a civil and organized fashion please?
Also, what does it matter if you can memorize president's names? You can memorize every president's name, however, if you are incapable of understanding the long-range effects of political actions undertaken today or yesterday or years ago, then you are the more ignorant of the two.
Those of you screaming "have you ever read the constitution?" Have you? Have you also read the bill of rights, and can you understand them?
Everyone is welcome to express their opinions, that's the beauty of our first amendment. But respect that others have opinions that are different than yours. Enjoy the chance to hear the other side, these differences in opinion are how we learn and grow, and maybe even realize maybe there are other ways to do things that may not be the same as ours, but they aren't bad ideas simply for being different.

Posted by: tina | July 11, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Now, if the president can indeed fire any of these Federal prosecutors for any (or without) reason, why does he stonewall and not permit any aids to testify before congress? He could simply admit that he fired these people for political reasons. The fact that the Bush administration operates in secret as mush as they possibly can (apparently breaking laws such as keeping records of White House emails in the process) continues to suggest they're doing things that even they believe are illegal. Any time congress wants information from the White House, they immediately stonewall, at most offering to let congress speak to their people without oaths, without records, and in this case, even agreeing that no follow-up will be permitted.

Bush better be writing a lot of get-out-of-jail cards for himself to be used once he loses executive privilege, as that's the thing he's using to stall all the investigations of his possibly illegal actions.

Posted by: Andrew | July 11, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!! Come on all of you guys get a life. This fine country will still be around and going after all this hubub is long gone. Our country is not made or broken by the actions of one man. You give President Bush too much credit and assume he has way too much power than he actually has. I would suggest you all (both Dems and Reps) get out and vote for who is best for our country in the next election, not your pocket book or ideologies. Part of the problem with our country is we are no longer the melting pot of the world but a mixed up stew! :)

Posted by: Prestonias | July 11, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Taylor is just another in the long line of NeoCon Bushies who thinks that they don't have to answer up because they were told not to by their boss -WRONG! Bush is not the boss - he works for us. We The People are the boss! It is to us they must answer to. Not Congress. Congress is only asking the questions. Throw her kind in a jail cell. She'll sing like a canary then.

Posted by: Born InTheUSA | July 11, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Here's a earthshattering concept for those supporting the president's actions: I'm a liberal and I'll admit that they were probably within his powers. Commuting scooter? Legal-within a power completely at his discretion.

So what's the amazing fact?

JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS LEGAL DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT, OR JUST, OR APPROPRIATE! If the best you can come up with is "it wasn't illegal," you have nothing. Bush could pardon and release every rapist, child molester, and murderer in the federal system tomorrow. Perfectly legal, within his power. Just as morally and ethically appropriate as his firing of attorneys and pardoning scooter, too. The argument you make applies just as well to each. If you're going to convince me that you're right, you need to do better than "he didn't break the law"-or does the fact that I haven't broken any make me as qualified to be president as Bush is?

Oh, and stop it with the comparisons to Clinton. I thought Bush claimed to be better than him; doesn't that mean that he's NOT supposed to do the bad things Clinton did? He certainly isn't capable of doing any of the good things Clinton did.

Posted by: S | July 11, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

As much as I dislike Bush and his administration, he is the President of the United States and was voted into his position. Where were all of you people during the last election? If you feel so harshly about this man, then why didn't you come out in droves to get rid of him. This is politics people. The Democrats are the same way. The only difference between the two parties are the colors and the animal mascots. Besides that, they each answer to the highest bidder. It's the American way!

Posted by: Joe Blow | July 11, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Any administration can make an-across-the-board sweep. That's what Clinton did. It's true he was probably on the phone getting oral sex when he did it, but it was perfectly legit. Firing U.S. prosecutors selectively for political reasons is different, and Bush & crew knew it was different--they particularly emailed about the "political firestorm" that would result. You guys would be better off talking about Monica.

Posted by: archer | July 11, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

RE: Clinton links...

When Clinton fired all the attorneys, one was investigating Whitewater, another was investigating Danny Rostenkowski. It wasn't a politically motivated firing--which is perfectly legal. He fired attorneys to stop investigations of criminal activity, and fired them all to cover his tracks.

I'm no fan of the Bush administration--but this is a witch-hunt at least as onerous as the one Fitzgerald conducted. I'm embarrassed for the Dems, and worried about their extremist wing. They lose another election, a lot of people are going to lose the REST of their minds.

Posted by: RK | July 11, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

BTW Righty nut jobs, it shows how misinformed you really are throwing out the Clinton argument. In fact, most every President has cleared house at the beginning of their terms, no debate. However, only the Bush=Cheney-Rove crime syndicate has fired their OWN PARTIES prosecuters mid stream and only this CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION have done so because of what will soon be uncovered for the masses, which is for refusing to be a part of raqueterring enterprise to fix elections, supress votes and jail innocent people. Do yourselves a favor and stop listening to Rush (junkie) and Hannity (facist) so much and do YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND HOMEWORK BASED ON FACTS!

Posted by: Can'tWait4daRapture | July 11, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

References to Clinton are so chicken...smart people please don't even respond to them! Bush administration is a bad example for our children...children beware---this is not how democracy should function! I'd like to borrow the famous 80s republican allegations of democrats to the new current GOP "Republicans are SOFT on crime" and "above the law!" Washington Post please lead an article with this headline...please! :-)

Posted by: marie | July 11, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

References to Clinton are so chicken...smart people please don't even respond to them! Bush administration is a bad example for our children...children beware---this is not how democracy should function! I'd like to borrow the famous 80s republican allegations of democrats to the new current GOP "Republicans are SOFT on crime" and "above the law!" Washington Post please lead an article with this headline...please! :-)

Posted by: marie | July 11, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

References to Clinton are so chicken...smart people please don't even respond to them! Bush administration is a bad example for our children...children beware---this is not how democracy should function! I'd like to borrow the famous 80s republican allegations of democrats to the new current GOP "Republicans are SOFT on crime" and "above the law!" Washington Post please lead an article with this headline...please! :-)

Posted by: marie | July 11, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

References to Clinton are so chicken...smart people please don't even respond to them! Bush administration is a bad example for our children...children beware---this is not how democracy should function! I'd like to borrow the famous 80s republican allegations of democrats to the new current GOP "Republicans are SOFT on crime" and "above the law!" Washington Post please lead an article with this headline...please! :-)

Posted by: marie | July 11, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

This is waste of public time & money, the paper tigers cannot do much like Bill Clinton said, "Law is just a small obstacle for them", they will do what they want to do.

Posted by: James | July 11, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Bill L : Since he is a compulsive liar, Clinton's willingness to be put under oath is like Brer Rabbit's plea not to be thrown into the briar bushes!

Posted by: Peter L | July 11, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

AJ- I suggest you read the constitution. And read them again and keep reading until you get a clue. Then maybe you can comprehend that these hearings on these firings are a waste of time.

Posted by: Auto2u | July 11, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Names and dates please. I know perfectly well that Clinton turned over the exact same number of attorneys that Bush did on taking office, which is to say, all of them. There was no "pick and choose".

Tell you what, show me the last US attorney removed from office during the middle of a presidents term, prior to Bush. And I do mean removed, not promoted or died or retired for illness.

Posted by: MadSat | July 11, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

BTW, from a legal standpoint, there is no standing for Bush to force anyone no longer employed by the administration to refuse answering a congressional subpoena, period. Ask an attorney versed in this area of law and they will tell you. Bush is not a dictator (as much as he might want to be) and executive priveledge does not apply to private citizens responding to a congressional subpoena. Once again, this is fact and this is why the Congress of the United States can (and should) hold anyones feet to the fire for doing so, out of some BS sense of loyalty to party. The US does not and cannot run that way.

Posted by: RapturePartyUSA | July 11, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

THIS STORY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLINTON. NOTHING.

It is now 2007 and the US is being run into the ground by a small cabal of facist CROOKS who have hijacked our government and the Republican party. They have acted with impunity and continue to hold themselves above the rule of law. They have broken the Hatch Act, FISA law, Geneva Convention, etc etc and continue to act as though there is no consequence to breaking the law, because until now there has been none.

If we are to improve the damaged position of our great country in the world we must stop acting like children ("Well Clinton did it too nah nah nah!!") and start holding the people who break the law accountable. Ask a Republican if perjury is a serious crime, and they will just bring up a previous president's name instead of answering "Yes, it is a crime."

We, the people, must not allow the high crimes of this administration to go unchecked. It shouldn't matter if Bush & Cheney have only 1 day left in office, they should be IMPEACHED and tried for TREASON (war profiteering) to show the rest of the world that we do care about the rule of law and want to take our great country back.

Posted by: Improve | July 11, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

All the GOP chickenhawks on this blog seem to have a short memory.

Yes Clinton did fire those procecutors when he took office. If Dubya would have fired enmass when he took office it would have been no big deal. But he waited 6 YEARS to fire a handful.

And Clinton did the one thing that Dubya hasnt, HE WAIVED HIS EXECUTIVE PRIVELDGE and had ALL of his people testify.

Havent seen Dubya do that yet, So quit your crying and go by some Klenex....

Posted by: American First | July 11, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Various powerful industrialists made economic aid available to fascist regimes in recent history and the result was catastrophic. Today powerful corporations have heavily manipulated both of the most influential parties in what was once the strongest democracy in the world. The voters of that democracy failed in their due diligence and lost all of their rights and yet they never even recognized the predicament they were already in. Maybe we now powerless voters should learn to respect one another and work together or the United Corporation of Amerika will continue to grind us all into the dust.

Posted by: paul | July 11, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

MIG-memorizing presidents...naming the states...what are you talking about? memorization and regurgitation of that tired info has never and will never denote intelligence.your petty namecalling and associating any peoples or views that are not in line with your obvious party views as "uneducated" "idiots" is telling of your antiquity.

Posted by: daniel matts | July 11, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I've not heard anyone but obvious chimps claim that Clinton's behavior justifies Bush's. What most of us are complaining about is the ridiculous double-standard in investigating, and the media coverage of, the issue.

Show me which one of the Bush/Gonzales firings interferred with the investigation of the PRESIDENT'S OWN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR! CLINTON STOPPED A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF HIMSELF and HIS WIFE!

No one is denying the Bush/Gonzales firings were political. They were not, to my knowledge, acts of criminal obstruction of justice. Yet we hear about it EVERY DAY. We NEVER hear anyone question Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy when she comments on it.

Posted by: RK | July 11, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Peter L : Your comment to me shows both your ignorance of politics but human nature as well. Why don't you turn off Rush Limbaugh and read a book---ANY book.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 11, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

RK,

First, I'd have much more respect for your arguments, and might even be convinced by them, if you could come up with a reason that Bush's actions were RIGHT, or of the ethical and moral standards appropriate for the president of the UNITED STATES (not just the republican party), not just tell us that (as I agree with to at least some degree) that they probably weren't illegal.

Your argument that only "obvious chimps" justify Bush through clinton is quite right.

What kind of a chimp would say "Show me which one of the Bush/Gonzales firings interferred with the investigation of the PRESIDENT'S OWN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR! CLINTON STOPPED A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF HIMSELF and HIS WIFE!"

Or maybe "We NEVER hear anyone question Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy when she comments on it."

Posted by: S | July 11, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Where are all the real christians? They left on the last train for the coast on the day the music died. Apologies to Don McClean and the great Buddy Holley!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 11, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Where are all the real christians? They left on the last train for the coast on the day the music died. Apologies to Don McClean and the great Buddy Holley!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 11, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Where are all the real christians? They left on the last train for the coast on the day the music died. Apologies to Don McClean and the great Buddy Holley!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 11, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

One more thing for RK:

You're wrong to state that "no-one" admits that the attorney firings were political.

I agree with you that no reasonable person could think otherwise.

However, this guy, I think named Alberto, said exactly that in February. He was their boss.

Are you saying he lied? If so, was that wrong? Was that illegal? Should there be any consequence for such a patently untrue statement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801880.html

Posted by: S | July 11, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Bill L: While I don't claim to be an intellectual match for your rapier-like wit, I did graduate with a PoliSci major, studying under Kennedy's own (Sorenson). Have held numerous state & national party positions, so I do have a better understanding of politics than your average bear. Human nature is a mystery to me, however, and it constantly amazes me why people adore scumbags with nothing to offer but "charisma."

Posted by: Peter L | July 11, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

bush isn't charismatic PL. He's a cocain head who evaded his tour. He bought and cheated his way into the office, and was downright dumbfounded when 9/11 happened, and Katrina, and probably anything else that he becomes "aware" of in his tiny chimp brain (what's left of it). Cheney is running this country, and he's a thug.

Posted by: comeupforair | July 11, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Sara Taylor ("Our Valerie"), Monica Goodling, Meghan O'Sullivan, Harriet Miers, Karen Hughes ("Our 'Yacinth"), Condoleezza, Cheney's other daughter ... is this what used to be called a seraglio?

Posted by: Philip V. Riggio | July 11, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Sara Taylor ("Our Valerie"), Monica Goodling, Meghan O'Sullivan, Harriet Miers, Karen Hughes ("Our 'Yacinth"), Condoleezza, Cheney's other daughter ... is this what used to be called a seraglio?

Posted by: Philip V. Riggio | July 11, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Although this issue is crucial and needs to be addressed there is a piece of legislation currently before congress that needs attention. The Global Poverty Act (H.R. 1302) will help bring attention to global poverty worldwide. The Borgen Project is working to bring congressional attention to H.R. 1302 and encourage co-sponsorship among prominate congressional leaders.

Posted by: Alexis | July 11, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

"It's amazing how uninformed the conservative posters are about the DOJ and the use of executive privilege."

I think we can safely shorten that to "It's amazing how uninformed the conservative posters are," full stop. In fact, it appears to be a requirement to be a conservative that your head be buried in the sand, or shoved far into something similarly devoid of light.

In regard to previous posters' ironclad claims of vote caging, the info is all right in the open, but of course conservatives don't bother to look. Links below.

Yes, the readership of the Post is liberal. Educated people tend to be. As for you filthy conservatives, why not try fixing your bad case of rectal-cranial inversion? Oh, because you're busy DENYING THE RIGHT TO VOTE TO BLACK SOLDIERS IN IRAQ. (Link to that one's on the bottom.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2167284/

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/21/State/No_telling_if_voter_r.shtml

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/14/1424239

Posted by: Phil | July 11, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

"It's amazing how uninformed the conservative posters are about the DOJ and the use of executive privilege."

I think we can safely shorten that to "It's amazing how uninformed the conservative posters are," full stop. In fact, it appears to be a requirement to be a conservative that your head be buried in the sand, or shoved far into something similarly devoid of light.

In regard to previous posters' ironclad claims of vote caging, the info is all right in the open, but of course conservatives don't bother to look. Links below.

Yes, the readership of the Post is liberal. Educated people tend to be. As for you filthy conservatives, why not try fixing your bad case of rectal-cranial inversion? Oh, because you're busy DENYING THE RIGHT TO VOTE TO BLACK SOLDIERS IN IRAQ. (Link to that one's on the bottom.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2167284/

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/21/State/No_telling_if_voter_r.shtml

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/14/1424239

Posted by: Phil | July 11, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

to Libtard Tools Suck and all the other Bush loving zombies out there who present no substantive argument to continue supporting this C-student frat boy we have in the White House other than "he's our president" yuk-yuk: Clinton's gone so stop invoking his presidency to support your assinine arguments (is there some secret love affair right wing nitwits have with clinton? i'm starting to think so); if Bush jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge, would you follow? (we can only be so fortunate); right wing talk radio has lied so vehemently and so often about the Clinton's that you right wing inbred goons swallow every drop then regurgitate in posts like this. the neo-cons and uber-right bush loyalists have done more damage to this country in last 7 years than I thought they were capable of: so shame on me for not thinking bigger.

Posted by: sirhcuslife | July 11, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I must say, I'm still shocked that there are people who come here and still support the impeachable actions of The Worst President Ever.

The President has NO "privilege" in the US Constitution to use his office with his political team and figure out ways to politicize our Justice Dept.
And he has NO executive privilege to sit around his office and figure out ways to break the law.

And for those of you still screaming about Clinton's "firings"???
You don't actually WANT to know the Truth, do you? As you surely know, the idea that Clinton did this, firing USA's midterm, is complete crap.

NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE THIS!

I can only guess that it is the sole meme that the Loyal Bushies have left: "Clinton did it too."

(oh! and that one about calling the majority of Americans "liberal retards" -- great campaign slogan for 2008! It should work about as well as 2006's GOP campaign slogan: "Nancy Pelosi is very, very scarey. Vote for us quivering cowards instead.")

Posted by: Jan | July 11, 2007 7:58 PM | Report abuse

While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. I would like to see our political leaders and especially our current "president", be supportive of more international affairs that affect our place in this world. We should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to eliminate half of the extreme poverty affecting the world by the year 2015. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.

Posted by: aileench | July 11, 2007 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Wow - the ones who should be ashamed of themselves are those who think there is any virtue or hypocrisy of any kind involved here. I normally don't read the posted comments but I'm so glad I didn't miss these; there is a trove of comedy to be tapped here - really.
The actual crimes committed on a continuous and obscene level in politics, particularly at the federal level know no true bounds or involve loyalty of any substance - they're committed by those who see "faith" for what it really is. Don't buy into the party system because it's just a facade. Once enough of us come to grips with this, there aren't enough pieces of riot-control equipment on the planet to stop us. Only then will the real America be revived.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2007 1:26 AM | Report abuse

Daniel M.
Exactly my point, memorization is so easy, the same as understanding history, and if everyone cannot even accomplish a simple memorization of our leaders' names, then what hope do we have for our future. I do not expect you or anyone that posts such things to understand the importance of pride in history, but if we, as Americans, do not care enough to learn about our history; do you really think we care enough to read our constitution, laws, bill of rights, or any other document? Of course, if you re-read my post, you would notice even with the "." the statement you were upset about was a question.
Also, before you say I am in line with party views, I would like you to know I was not one of the ones who voted in Bush. I think there were great many errors in the adminstration, but there is a difference, regardless of what party you are in, Dem, Ind, or Rep. The President has the right, according to exec privelge to do what he did, I don't even care if it was the most leftists President we could find, I would say the same thing.

Of course, how could I expect anyone to understand it, since clearly do you see anyone that is a thinker. Usually you see the "we hate Bush" "down with conversatives" "I am liberal, lets move over to Communism China because they just to put their FDA head to death". "I hate liberals, so blame Clinton" I apologize, but this gets old.

Also, just so you know, nearly every president cleaned house with laywers, not just Clinton and Bush.

Posted by: Mig | July 12, 2007 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Phil | July 11, 2007 05:35 PM:

As a veteran, I would like clear this up, since you obviously never served in our military. Everyone, I mean everyone, votes, black, white, green, purple, or pink. Yes, just go on believing the media, instead of actually studying anything. Where do you people come up with this stuff?

Posted by: Mig | July 12, 2007 7:57 AM | Report abuse

To "S": Take a deep breath and reread my post....

My comments on Clinton were not intended to justify Bush's arguably un-ethical firings. They simply point out the raging double standards in media coverage, and the degree to which many critics of Bush have completely surrenderd critical thinking. Some of your ideological co-horts are scary. Scary like some righties were back in the early 90s. It's not good.

Yes, Gonzales lied about the firings being apolitical. No serious student of politics could take such a comment as anything but blatant bum-covering. Go ahead a scream for ANOTHER investigation. Other liars are not likely to call him on it until they smell blood--which they apparently have.

And finally, when is the left going to spend a little of this copious energy forming alternative IDEAS that appeal to moderates, so we don't have to vote for hacks like Bush? Do you post on substantive policy issues--or just scream about political ones?

Posted by: RK | July 12, 2007 8:20 AM | Report abuse

RE: REPUBLICANS SUCKASS' comment, the ever-witty: "No one died when Clinton lied"

...Except Vince Foster. And Ron Brown.

Mary Mahoney. Ed Willey. Jerry Parks. Kathy Ferguson and Bill Shelton. Major William S. Barkley Jr. Captain Scott J. Reynolds Sgt. Brian Hanley Sgt. Tim Sabel Major General William Robertson Col. William Densberger Col. Robert Kelly Spec. Gary Rhodes Steve Willis Robert Williams Conway LeBleu Todd McKeehan....

Posted by: RK | July 12, 2007 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Dear Mig, in regards to
"Posted by: Phil | July 11, 2007 05:35 PM:

As a veteran, I would like clear this up, since you obviously never served in our military. Everyone, I mean everyone, votes, black, white, green, purple, or pink. Yes, just go on believing the media, instead of actually studying anything. Where do you people come up with this stuff?

Posted by: Mig | July 12, 2007 07:57 AM "

Phil is on active duty... I'll let him tell the rest.

Posted by: JC | July 12, 2007 9:13 AM | Report abuse

JC: If Phil is on active duty there are two options: One he is pissed that is in Iraq or in the military in general, which he has more than every right to be or two he simply doesn't know his options. I am not going to elaborate on how military votes during war or overseas, but I am sure Philly boy elaborate on this. Unforutnately, now I am more curious that if he is on active duty and posting such stuff, this would be a clear direlection of duty. Of course, if you don't believe me, trying reading the UCMJ. If that is phil's real first name, I would be more worried about someone relaying that he is on active duty to some senior vets or active duty members. I say this, because I respect those in the military freedom of speech, which is not necessarily free, while it appears you just hindered it by iterating that he was on active duty. Although, who really cares right, it is not like the military could ping an IP address and find out exactly who anyone is anytime, right?

Please think before you give someone's privacy away.

Posted by: Mig | July 12, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

MIG , your right there, I actually tried to stop the post but it went through..

Posted by: JC | July 12, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. I would like see congress support more international dilemmas that affect our place in this world, such as global poverty. We should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to eliminate half of the extreme poverty affecting the world by the year 2015. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.

Posted by: aileench | July 12, 2007 9:26 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company