Ticomaya, what more proof does there need to be that the Clintonistas have no conscience?
I see the conservatives, who preach law and order, now say the Clinton administration is their teacher in morality and ethics and will follow their lead.
To bad they couldn't follow other things from Clinton, like balancing the budget.
White House: Dems' investigations excessive
WASHINGTON (AP) ?- The White House on Thursday pushed back against congressional investigations of administration activities, saying lawmakers should spend more time passing laws to solve domestic problems.
Last week, in a constitutional showdown with Congress, the Bush administration claimed executive privilege and rejected demands for White House documents about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. The House and Senate judiciary committees have set a deadline of 10 a.m. Monday for the White House to explain its basis for the claim.
The administration has not said when or if it will respond. But presidential spokesman Scott Stanzel noted Thursday that the White House has received a flurry of inquires since Democrats took control of Congress in January, and has turned over some 200,000 pages of documents.
"They've launched over 300 investigations, had over 350 requests for documents and interviews, and they have had over 600 oversight hearings in just about 100 days," Stanzel said. "So that's about six oversight hearings a day."
The assertion of executive privilege was the latest turn in an increasingly hostile standoff between the administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the Iraq war, executive power, the war on terror and Vice President Dick Cheney's authority. A day earlier, the Judiciary Committee delivered subpoenas to the offices of Bush, Cheney, the national security adviser and the Justice Department about the administration's warrantless wiretapping program.
In a letter to Congress last Thursday, White House counsel Fred Fielding told Congress that the administration has rejected subpoenas for documents through a claim of executive privilege. That letter also made it clear that neither former presidential counsel Harriet Miers nor former White House political director Sara Taylor would testify next week, as directed by the subpoenas.
Stanzel stopped short of accusing Congress of being overzealous in its oversight role.
xingu wrote:I see the conservatives, who preach law and order, now say the Clinton administration is their teacher in morality and ethics and will follow their lead.
To bad they couldn't follow other things from Clinton, like balancing the budget.
I would love to have the 90's Congress back, that did a few things constructively alright, such as a more balanced budget, welfare reform, and things like that, instead of endless investigations.
Ha... good one Tico.
Remember who Marc Rich's lawyer was ?
I'll give you a hint...
His nickname is "scooter"
It's not only the Bush deficit that subsequent presidents will be handicapped with.
I have a sincere question of the folks here who would describe themselves as Bush supporters. Forgive me if this has been discussed recently (a link to that discussion would be fine).
I realize that this thread and it's predecessors were the results of the last Presidential elections, but I'm curious about your current thoughts on GWB. Not Republican vs Democrat or party politics as usual, but GWB as President of the United States.
Does GWB still have supporters among the posters here to the point where he would be the candidate of choice in the next election? I know he's a lame duck... I'm asking a 'what if'. Do you think that he would face a primary fight if he were able to have a third term? Would he be the nominee?
Some of the candidates running now, I would have supported ahead of Bush the last time, so no, I would not support him in the primary, but if he was the candidate again against a Democrat, I would support him.
thanks, okie. I hope others respond as well.
JPB wrote:I have a sincere question of the folks here who would describe themselves as Bush supporters. Forgive me if this has been discussed recently (a link to that discussion would be fine).
I realize that this thread and it's predecessors were the results of the last Presidential elections, but I'm curious about your current thoughts on GWB. Not Republican vs Democrat or party politics as usual, but GWB as President of the United States.
Does GWB still have supporters among the posters here to the point where he would be the candidate of choice in the next election? I know he's a lame duck... I'm asking a 'what if'. Do you think that he would face a primary fight if he were able to have a third term? Would he be the nominee?
Do I support Bush as much now as I did??
I have to say no,I dont.
He has committed to many stupid mistakes and blunders for me to support him again.
I have just about given up on my support for him and most of his policies,especially the immigration issue.
I think he was wrong on that,and cant support him.
He has not controlled spending like he said he would,in fact he is spending now like a democrat does.
He was wrong to give up the fight for "privatization" of SS,even though thats not what it actually was.
He was wrong to not make the tax cuts permanent when he had the chance.
The list of things I thing he was wrong about is to long to type out here.
BUT,against the current crop of dem candidates,I think he would still be the best choice.
Against the current crop of repub candidates,I would not vote for him or support him.
BTW,I am neither a dem or a repub,but I AM a conservative.
Thanks, mm, I'm curious if the sentiments of others will be similar.
JPB wrote:I have a sincere question of the folks here who would describe themselves as Bush supporters. Forgive me if this has been discussed recently (a link to that discussion would be fine).
I realize that this thread and it's predecessors were the results of the last Presidential elections, but I'm curious about your current thoughts on GWB. Not Republican vs Democrat or party politics as usual, but GWB as President of the United States.
Does GWB still have supporters among the posters here to the point where he would be the candidate of choice in the next election? I know he's a lame duck... I'm asking a 'what if'. Do you think that he would face a primary fight if he were able to have a third term? Would he be the nominee?
Yes, I think he would face a primary challenge if he were running again, and I doubt very much that he would be the nominee. But I'd certainly vote for Bush if the alternative was either Gore or Kerry.
So Tico, failure and incompetance are the two qualifications you seek when voting for a president.
xingu wrote:So Tico, failure and incompetance are the two qualifications you seek when voting for a president.
Come on, there is so much more: arrogance and illiteracy to name a few. Tico is not a two issue voter.
I believe Tico said he would NOT vote for Kerry or Gore already.
Here's a good piece from the crafty Dick Morris.
Bush will have to pull out of Iraq, or face historical obliteration
By Dick Morris
July 11, 2007
Are they traitors or prophets, these Republicans who have jumped ship and called for Bush to begin pulling out of Iraq ?- Sens. George Voinovich (Ohio), Richard Lugar (Ind.), John Warner (Va.), and Pete Domenici (N.M.)? More likely the latter. A look at the political map and the electoral calendar tells us that GOP Sens. Arlen Specter (Pa.), Norm Coleman (Minn.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Susan Collins (Maine), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Gordon Smith (Ore.) are probably not far behind them.
If you haven't been counting, that comes to 11 Republican defections ?-enough to force a vote even if the Dems lose Joe Lieberman (Conn.). A veto override? Add in the likes of marginal-state GOP senators like John Thune (S.D.), Kit Bond (Mo.), John Ensign (Nev.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and a handful of others and it's possible. Retiring Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) might just do his party a favor on his way out.
The Republican senators are coming to realize that Bush needs to begin to pull out to save his party, even if it puts Iraq at risk. With the president's favorability down to 29 percent in the USA Today poll, and 26 percent in Newsweek, the party leaders are coming to realize that they are not planning to join Bush in retirement ?- at least not yet ?- and that unless he begins the pullout, the GOP cannot hold on to the White House.
Hillary's stand ?- demanding a start to the withdrawal but not setting an end date ?- gives Bush the flexibility he needs to begin to pull out and stretch the process as long as he has to in order to have some hope of achieving his objective. The back end of Clinton's position ?- that sufficient troops should remain to provide intelligence, logistical, air, and training support to the Iraqi Army and to prevent Iranian infiltration and hunt al Qaeda operatives in the provinces ?- will make it hard for her to differentiate her position from Bush's once the withdrawal starts.
The mainstream of the American public is not going to go to the ramparts over 10,000 or 20,000 troops for a few months one way or the other. For those on the left who do, they will find Hillary's proposals as unsatisfying as they are going to find Bush's slow pullout pace. Right now they don't notice the limitations on Hillary's position because Bush is against any pullout ever. But if the president begins to withdraw, the left will scrutinize the details of Hillary's program and find it wanting.
For the rest of us, Bush can defend the pace of his pullout, noting that a withdrawal while under enemy fire is the most difficult of all military maneuvers and that he must safeguard American lives and those of our Iraqi allies in the process. No reasonable observer is going to force him to commit to a set pace of withdrawal once he has begun the process in good faith.
From the point of view of Iraq, a gradual pullout makes all kinds of sense. The lesson of Vietnam is clear: If the public get so turned off on a military intervention, it will force Congress to ban any further involvement, making it inevitable that our enemies win. But if the administration salvages a modicum of public support by way of a prompt but gradual withdrawal, it will preserve the option of re-entry by air or land should an adverse situation arise. We probably could have stopped the North from winning in Vietnam had Congress not banned any air or ground involvement after 1974. We must not fall into the same trap in Iraq.
Besides, beginning a pullout may even force the government in Baghdad to get moving on real reforms in the distribution of oil revenue and the sharing of political power in the hope of slowing the pace of the withdrawal.
But Bush faces a stark choice: If he doesn't begin pulling out, his party will lose the White House, lose Congress by stunning and likely filibuster-proof margins, and his tax cut and education reforms will be repealed. His footsteps will be obliterated from history. It will be as if he never served.
And if Bush doesn't get it in time, there are enough sensible Republican senators to give him a wake-up call.
