July 25, 2007
OVD: Obsessive Vendetta Disorder (Karen Hanretty)
Ron Christie is entirely too gentlemanly and nuanced in his blog today, entitled “Contempt, Indeed.” Since I lack all gentlemanly qualities and have no need for nuance on this blog, I will state emphatically that the congressional Democrats are engaged in nothing short of an obsessive vendetta against all things George W. Bush. Their lunatic obsession reached its zenith today, not just on partisan but on practical grounds.
Christie wrote: “Just a few minutes ago, the House Judiciary Committee voted to authorize criminal contempt of Congress charges against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and current White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten. Their alleged crimes? Refusing to disclose internal deliberations and documents that the president of the United States asserted were protected by executive privilege.”
Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) — both of whom envision themselves as the next chief executive — should be wringing the necks of the House Judiciary Committee for essentially trying to abolish the constitutional right of executive privilege.
It’s not entirely clear to me why the nine U.S. attorneys were fired — though it seems pretty obvious some of them deserved pink slips for failing to investigate and prosecute voter fraud in the last election — but as Christie points out, even if their appointments were terminated for political reasons, there’s no crime committed.
And that reduces these charges of criminal contempt against Miers and Bolton to nothing more than an obsessive vendetta by a bunch of unhinged liberals.
23 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Since you are saying the same thing as Christie, the response at that post applies here:
"Americans voted against Bush. A blind Christie can see with his cane that this is true. It is about time that Congress gets back their oversight. Their ratings will go up. That is your big fear isn’t it Christie? I already view you as one of the most unethical persons on the planet. You add to that conception daily in your posts here. I would say you would be entitled to an opinion but you are such a liar on so many issues, you deserve the “praise”. BTW John Bolton was a PNAC person, and advocated a new Pearl Harbor. He wants America to control the wealth and oil and petrocurrency throughout the world. He is evil to the core. You think he doesn’t deserve anything?"
And Karen, what do you know about government involvement in 9/11? Come clean or you are wasting our time.
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 25, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Boy, you GOP lackeys are sure a whiney bunch today
Since those supporting this clearly out of control President are in the minority, how does it feel being accurately described as a wild-eyed radical extremist?
I just hope you're as supportive of all these unchecked powers W's claiming for himself when they're wielded by a, say, President Hillary Clinton
But I've learned to expect nothing but overwhelming hypocrisy from the elitist, ivory-tower moral-relativists making up the GOP these days
Comment by KingCranky — July 25, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
They are wasting time that would be better used to prepare our country for the next attack from terrorists.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 25, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
Thinking that legitimate oversight of the executive branch is to quote Ms Hanretty, "obsessive vendetta against all things George W. Bush" is the height of hypocricy. The Congress is asking pointed questions into this administration that has not been asked by the previous Congresses. I wonder if all law and order Republicans would condone a Democratic President telling a republican committee chairman to go cheney themselves and have their employee not show up to answer questions under oath that the rest of us have to do. When it was Bill & Monica, it was all about the law. Now that you man is getting gored, wll that's a different story. Both you and Ron's posting were those of "loyal Bushies" moouthing off banal talking points that are weak at most and laughable in the face of evidence piling up that BUsh broke the law. It's not King George, it's president Bush. Get over it, no man is above the law.
Comment by Mike Coleman — July 25, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Karen, I admire you for the lack gentlemanly qualities and nuance when you unmask the liberal thugs. Clinton and Obama know only too well that the Democratic witch hunts are not based on principle but only on Bush hatred and scoring political points with the expression of that hatred. They envision themselves as the dream ticket that will be greeted by the adoring Democratic majority when they are elected, with as much certainty as they assign to the sun rising tomorrow. Keep exposing the scumbags so that they do not the electoral successes that would turn into a tragedy for the country.
Comment by Igor R. — July 25, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Your ignorance of the contours of the doctrine of executive privilege is striking but not surprising.
You said: "[E]ven if their appointments were terminated for political reasons, there’s no crime committed." Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Whether a crime occurred, however, is COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT. The Congress of the United States is not limited to investigating crimes. The purpose of congressional oversight is POLITICAL, NOT CRIMINAL ACCOUNTABILITY. What is so hard to understand about that? How are lawmakers supposed to make laws relating to how the country is governed if the actual governing is completely shrouded in secrecy. Subpoenaing Miers and Bolton was not a preliminary step towards impeachment, it was an effort to gain information so that the Congress can carry out its constitutional functions effectively.
Tell me: would our system of government be better off without a robust doctrine of executive privilege, or without an effective system of checks and balances?
Comment by Nicholas Rogers — July 25, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
The way the news media has wilfully and eagerly assisted the Democratic Party with its propaganda campaign is sickening.
ABC News a few months ago devoted the first five minutes of two consecutive newscasts on this non-existent scandal. And at the end of the stories, they happened to mention "even though there is nothing illegal…"
If there is nothing illegal, there is NOTHING to investigate. There is no such thing as "shrouded in secrecy". No administration or politician invites cameras into the bathtub with them.
There is no scandal; there is nothing to investigate.
But that will not stop the Democrats and the news organizations from manufacturing a scandal that does not exist.
If there was illegal activity, I could understand these investigations.
It's a shame the Bush Administration doesn't have the fortitude to defend itself against these blatant Democrat political games and outright lies.
Come on Georgie, why don't you remind everyone that nothing illegal has been alleged and there is nothing to investigate?
Comment by DFAL — July 25, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
Right, nothing illegal, that's why Gonzales story keeps changing with every release of documents and e-mails, and that's why W is claiming "Executive Privilege", because they have NOTHING to hide
It's obvious clearly illegal acts are what W's attempting to cover-up with the "Executive Privilege" bs
And actually, the President is free to fire or dismiss the US Attorneys only for any LEGAL reason-attempts to block people from voting are clearly illegal
Face it, since this Administration tried to slime those US Attorneys it dismissed, this is a completely self-inflicted political fiasco, and that the Admin went ahead with this debacle even after they knew the Dems were coming into power, it shows just how ideology triumphs even common sense with this Administration, its lunatic neocon cheerleaders and GOP enablers
So, since nobody is claiming that the President isn't free to fire US Attorneys for any legal reason, please tell us of another mass firing of US Attorneys halfway through a President's second term
Comment by KingCranky — July 25, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Karen, repeat after me:
there is no "constitutional right of executive privilege"
there is no "constitutional right of executive privilege"
there is no "constitutional right of executive privilege"
Now you've got it!! Now you're no longer "unhinged"!! You might even be able to tell the truth!!
Comment by Don Bacon — July 25, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
I'm worried more about the next attack on the Constitution from this corrupt administration than I am an attack from 'terra rists'.
Comment by Chris in NM — July 25, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
Nicholas, our system has been shown to function well in times of crisis only when the President is allowed quick and unencumbered freedom to act. The checks and balances are in this case to get rid of power usurpers, not to politically castrate the President.
Comment by Igor R. — July 25, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
Karen, you must really beleive Nixon was just caught up in a game of 'gotcha' when he shamed the Country and resigned in disgrace. Well, Dumbya makes Nixon look like a choir boy. You're viewing this endless corruption through jaundiced vision. Try placing your allegiance to the Constitution instead of to the GOP affiliation and your vision might begin to clear up a bit. However, like a parachute, the mind works best when opened.
Comment by Chris in NM — July 25, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Rosencrans is scared of the terrorists.
The only thing to fear is fear itself, Rosencrans.
Rosencrns, are you willing to sacrifice your Constitutional rights for a sense of security?
Are you afraid? Would you like to share your story with the group?
Comment by Lester Fields — July 25, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
How do lying commentators like Karen get the right to post their trash? They're only here to feed red neat to the likes of Robert and Igor. Freedom of speech should carry some responsibilities.
Comment by Don Bacon — July 25, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
The Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon validated the need for protection of communications between high government officials, but ruled that a President's claim of "Executive Privilege" was not absolute. The subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee for the attendance of Ms. Meirs and Mr. Bolton constitute nothing but a "fishing expedition" and not are being served to enforce the the violation of any federal statute, as no federal crime has been alleged to have been violated, since the President had the authority to fire any of these US attorneys for any reason whatsoever. As such, this is another example of the rabid "Feingold Mob" whipping the masses into a frenzy aided by the elitist "yellow media."
Comment by David Erlichman — July 25, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
In case you are unaware —
The President is a just a man who the people have elected. We LEND our consent to the President to exercise certain powers. The exercise of those powers by the President (or any elected official) is subject to our consent (all the time, not just in an election year).
The Constitutional checks are there purposely to be used by The People (read: Congress) when WE DECIDE they are warranted. In short, our government is designed so that we tell the President what we will accept — not the other way around. All this "pleasure of the President" crap has been taken way too seriously. Everyone is answerable to the people and it is our job to remind even the President that he is entitled only to the authority that we CONSENT to give him.
Short of national security issues and very few other exceptions, transparency is the rule — not the exception. And this goes for Democrats and Republicans.
Comment by Tross — July 26, 2007 @ 1:31 am
Igor, wtf are you talking about? "Power usurpers"? Are you referring to Congress? Because, like it or not, they win elections, too. As you may or may not be aware, our constitution comes fully equipped with seven fully functional articles. I recommend that you start with the first one, which is devoted exclusively to defining the composition and powers of the legislative branch. There are some big words, so don't be afraid to ask for help.
As far as political castration goes, this is a completely self-inflicted wound. Nobody forced Bush to instruct Miers to ignore a Congressional subpoena. Nobody forced Bush into attempting to transform the DOJ into a semi-militarized arm of the GOP. What you're seeing unfold right now is the reaction that our system is designed to produce when an executive tries to grow to powerful and, in doing so, ignores, tramples or otherwise defiles important institutional traditions that have sustained our system of governance.
Comment by Nicholas Rogers — July 26, 2007 @ 8:37 am
Karen, you and Ron are completly correct on this. The liberals who are commenting are just mad because you are raining on their parade. The "Bush Bashers" are so blinded by their hatred of George Bush, that they can not objectivly look at a situation dispassionatley.
As has been said time and time again, this ridiculous "scandal" has only be carried forward by partisan hacks on the "suspicion" of wrong doing–they don't actually have any facts, but since when have liberals needed facts to become hysterionic over one of their many conspiracy theories?
Comment by Andrew Clark — July 26, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
You mean "conspiracy theories" like
WsMD in Iraq?
Saddam Hussein had ties to the 9-11 attacks, al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Usama bin Laden?
Overthrowing a brutal dictator to free a long-suffering Iraqi populace?
Oh, I forgot, NONE of those reasons were either borne out by reality or were the main reasons W decided to cut & run from finishing off bin Laden, the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to instead invade & occupy Iraq
Yeah, the GOP would NEVER push conspiracy theories like Vince Foster being murdered, or Clinton running a drug-smuggling ring in Arkansas
Comment by KingCranky — July 26, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Nicholas, no I don't mean Congress. I mean if the President decides to just stay in office for the rest of his life. Or starts passing laws himself. Or commit obvious crimes. Clearly a signing statement or Gitmo can be interpreted as either warranted policy or impeachable crimes, but I think the intent to prevent gross corruption and power grabs.
King, the conspiracy theory that Clinton and Gore hid the fact that TWA flight 800 was brought down by terrorists is pretty good. Like there were lots of witnesses for the missiles, and the fact that it occurred on July 17, which was Iraq's National Day, the most important national holiday there which celebrated Saddam Hussein's coming to power.
Comment by Igor R. — July 26, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
It is illegal to use the power and authority of office (such as that of US Attorney to attempt to influence elections. If you don't believe that, then I give up with you. If you do believe that, then it follows that to retaliate against someone in that office who refuses to follow that illegal path would also be illegal. For those who are willing to follow the paper trail, it is apparent that BOTH illegal acts were committed here. Those who attempt to hide this fact by withholding evidence are ALSO committing illegal acts. The solution is simple; find the truth and put the offenders in jail! That's the American way, long may it flourish!
Comment by Jack McGuire — July 26, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Is Igor and Rosencrans the same peron? What the hell are you two smoking? Do you know where I can get some? How do you two really believe Bush? How is that possible? Oh well.
Comment by Cody Buck — July 26, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
Cody, what kind of a question is it, "do you believe Bush"? Is he selling a used car and saying it runs great? I didn't like where he stood on immigration, but he is finally winning in Iraq. What's this deal with "believing" him?
Comment by Igor R. — July 27, 2007 @ 7:07 pm