Check out this groaner:
Yesterday, Mr. Bush’s lawyer told the commission that Ms. Rice would testify. And after months of unacceptable delay, the lawyer said Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would also talk to the entire commission in private, not under oath. But the panel had to pay a price: it agreed, at the administration’s insistence, that after Ms. Rice testifies, it will not call her back or ask any other White House official to testify in public.
The White House’s initial refusal to allow Ms. Rice to testify and its cynical use of a confidential adviser as a public accuser would have been bad enough. But they fit an unpleasant pattern. This president has repeatedly abused his executive privilege while seeking to hide behind it, starting when Mr. Cheney invoked that privilege to gather business executives in secret to draft the administration’s energy policy.
A.) The court case on the energy policy issue has not been resolved, so claiming it was an abuse is simply, at this point, a lie.
B.) There were legitimate issues regarding Condi’s testimony- they have been resolved. This is an abuse how?
C.) How anyone who lived through the Clinton years can claim that the current President is abusing executive privilege is beyond me. That takes a level of audacity that can be found only on the NY Times opinion page.
JKC
John-
I’d say not letting Dr. Rice testify in the first place was a political blunder of the first order. Makes me wonder if Rove and his gang are really as smart as advertised.
As for Clinton: as I recall, neither Whitewater or Monica led to the death of anyone. (Monica might have led to Bill’s had not Hillary been a forgiving soul.) I think we’re talking apples and oranges here.
As for Cheney’s Task Force: you’d think someone who was around during Watergate would have learned that’s it’s the cover-up, not the crime that’ll do you in politically.
John Cole
JKC- a political blunder is not the same as an abuse of power.
As far as Clinton goes:
1.) No one died from what I believe are legitimately privileged conversations from the Cheney task force.
2.) No one has to die for there to be an abuse of executive privilege, as was repeatedly demonstrated by Clinton.
3.) You are right- considering Hillary’s involvement in Watergate, you would think that some people would learn that the cover-up is often times worse than what is being hidden.
Matt Hurley
Hey John, I think you mean Whitewater and not Watergate in counter-point #3.
Now Hillary involvement in Watergate would be something to write home about… : )
John Cole
Matt-
I meant Watergate. Hillary was a junior member of the investigation team that was examining the Watergate scandal. Another name that was involved with that team was Richard Ben-Veniste- which should help to explain his nakedly partisan tone during the 9/11 commission testimony.
JKC
John- political stupidity is NOT “abuse of power”- we agree on that point. My point was that Bush made a poor decision in stonewalling the 9/11 commision over Rice’s testimony, especially since he then proceeded to fold like a cheap tent.
As for Cheney’s task force, “executive provilige” is all well and good, up to the point where a crime has been committed. Do I think Cheney did something crooked here? Maybe not. But the high profile of “Kenny Boy” Lay and the shenanigans in California certainly justify some transparency from the Bush League in this matter.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Cheney’s going to lose the records lawsuit. And if the Administration hadn’t threatened the GAO, he would REALLY have lost that lawsuit, as the refusal to give access to the GAO is against precedent.
How am I so confident? Because we’re going to accuse VP Cheney and the energy company officials of fellating each other during the meetings. First, it’s metaphorically true, and, second, it’s established case law now that all forms of privacy, decency, and executive privilege must yield when oral sex is being investigated.
CadillaqJaq
I’ve yet to lose any slepp worrying about what Cheney and his eneregy task force discussed behind closed doors…
As far as Bush stonewalling: I think he may have out-manuevered the Dems by waiting, letting them rant away, assuming he would NOT allow Rice to testify… you gotta believe a lot more folks are going to tune in now that she is than if she had publically testified earlier.
Woe be to poor Richard Clarke.
CadillaqJaq
I’ve yet to lose any slepp worrying about what Cheney and his eneregy task force discussed behind closed doors…
As far as Bush stonewalling: I think he may have out-manuevered the Dems by waiting, letting them rant away, assuming he would NOT allow Rice to testify… you gotta believe a lot more folks are going to tune in now that she is than if she had publically testified earlier.
Woe be to poor Richard Clarke.
CadillaqJaq
Would you believe “sleep” instead of slepp? Sorry for the double post…
rapes
Nil desperandum! – Never despair! (Horace)