I still dont see why this is an issue and needs any investigation at all.

Clinton fired 93 and all hell breaks loose when Bush or Justice whatever fire 8?

Needless, tiresome, investigations that we are all paying for dandy.

And when they find NOTHING, will they reimburse us the money wasted on all this crap?

How about the next investigation and the next?

I could slap all the Republicans that didnt get up off thier duff’s and vote.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Since you like to quote Ed:

We know that some documents have not been provided to Congress on the basis of executive privilege, but today we find out that Justice is blocking the documents and not the White House

While the Justice Department is a part of the administration those lines in the paper cited will make it seem to the layperson who picks up the paper and reads the first few paragraphs (as most people do) that Bush was behind the emails being withheld.

The whole article is about “The Bush Administration” this and the “The Bush Administration” that when they could of easily have written “the Justice Department withheld”. Why the use of “The Bush Administration” over and over again?

Because this is what are MSM does nowadays and it’s called BDS. I’ve given examples of this MSM bias over and over and over again on this blog but on occasion there comes someone such as yourself who is stricken with the leftist virus who refuses to see this syndrome. Tis okay, nothing less is expected from lefties.

You see Curt, it’s not about the illegality of the actions. As Ed Morrissey put it: Illegal? No. But it smells.

What is it with you and Ed? Is he the spokesperson for Conservatives now or something to you?….geez. Whether it smells to you or not the fact of the matter is it was not illegal nor improper. They serve at the leisure of the President.

BDS plain and simple.

In this case, it was bad for the notion of political independence for US Attorneys, and that’s an important point in evaluating the performance of Gonzales and the administration

Tell that to the 93 that were fired under Clinton.

Political independence my ass.

Reminds me of the hysteria the MSM drums up about the Signing Statements. Not like Clinton did any of those, including one in which he refused to carry our abortion related legislation. But nary a word about that from our MSM at the time.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

It is entirely amazing that this sort of stuff needs to be said. But, apparently it does need to be said:

Wow, Bush withheld documents?

Actually, no where does the article you cite say that George Bush withheld documents. That’s your spin, Curt. It’s confused to say the least.

The headline you cite says quite plainly “Administration Withheld E-Mails About Rove”. You know Curt, ADMINISTRATION, as in:

The activity of a government or state in the exercise of its powers and duties.
3. often Administration
a. The executive branch of a government.

Of course, the current executive branch is led by George Bush, hence it is named: The Bush Administration. And, this administration, being part of the executive branch, would include, oh… I don’t know… the Department of Justice maybe?

For some reason, you seem to think that because the Bush Administration bares his name, that he doesn’t bare responsibility. I guess. But, what is interesting is that you choose to express this by stating that the article, somehow, although is clearly does not, actually says, as you put it: Bush withheld documents when it does not say that Bush withheld them, it says that his Administration held them.

Yet, you persist:

Oh, so Justice is withholding the documents…..

But I thought the byline of this story is that Bush did?

Okay, Curt. I’ll play. So, where exactly does it say, anywhere in the article you cite, that Bush was withholding the documents?

I mean, uh… you do understand that a sitting presidents administration bares his name and that as such he bares much of the responsibility for what occurs under his watch, in the Administration / Executive branch, right?

Oh, I see, you object to his being blamed for things that occur under his Presidency, in his Administration? Is that it?

I can understand that, I suppose. But, again: where does it actually say in the article you cite that Bush (not his administration) withheld documents?

And, one has to figure if you get something so elemental incorrect, the rest must be subject to scrutiny, no?

It was NOT illegal to fire these prosecutors.

You see Curt, it’s not about the illegality of the actions. As Ed Morrissey put it: Illegal? No. But it smells.

And, Ed is all over this issue and has been. Regarding it’s importance:

When an AG makes statements to Congress, by testimony or official correspondence, as affirmative as his statements on the involvement of the White House were, Congress has a right to expect that the AG has explicitly determined the truth of those statements. Otherwise, the proper form would be to state that he has no knowledge of whatever is at issue.

One of two things must be true: either Gonzales knew of the coordination between Harriet Miers and and his aide Kyle Sampson, or he knew nothing. If the former is true, then he deliberately misled Congress. If the latter is true, then Gonzales has serious issues in management skills, and the White House must know it — because Miers then deliberately bypassed Gonzales.

Neither option holds much benefit for Gonzales. If he knew nothing, then he didn’t do much to determine the truth before making representations to Congress on the dismissals. If he did know about the work Sampson and Miers did for most of two years on preparing these dismissals, then Gonzales has opened himself to a contempt charge from Congress. Gonzales has to paint himself a fool rather than a liar in order to salvage his political standing.

The appearance of this report in the Wall Street Journal should underscore the depth of the problem (and my apologies for the rare link to a subscription-only report). The WSJ hardly qualifies as a member of a left-wing cabal of news organizations, and their recognition of the problem demonstrates its scope.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009399.php

And, today:

Again, though, this is old news to a large extent. We know that Justice and Congress have a dispute on what Gonzales should release. We already know that Justice initially misrepresented Rove’s involvement in the process that put Griffin in Arkansas. We already have an acknowledgement that Justice misrepresented Rove’s role.

What we still do not have is any indication that Rove acted illegally. Again, these are political appointments, and the White House has the authority to dismiss appointees, even when it’s a stupid thing to do. Rove works for the President and can make all the suggestions he wants, and the President can appoint people based on his recommendations. In this case, it was bad for the notion of political independence for US Attorneys, and that’s an important point in evaluating the performance of Gonzales and the administration — but it’s not illegal. This is old news dressed up for fresh headlines. It doesn’t move the story one whit. It underscores why Gonzales should hit the road, but only by repeating his fumbles and obfuscations and those of his staff.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009938.php

So, why all the focusing on inserting spin into it now Curt?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

OFF TOPIC: a little distraction for your reading pleasure
(the language may be considered a little harsh)

http://thecitytroll.blogspot.com/2007/05/theyre-feeding-us-load-of-shit.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0