americablog.blogspot.com — Ten years ago, White House spokesman Tony Snow wrote an article demanding that then-President Bill Clinton let his top aides testify under oath in a criminal investigation. But now Snow is saying that Bush's top aides don't have to testify under oath for their role in helping Att. Gen. Gonzales lie under oath. Hypocrisy much?
Mar 21, 2007 View in Crawl 4
entropymanMar 22, 2007
Yes, I agree this should now be a criminal investigation. The Democrats are being very cautious about call it that just yet, because they're still gathering evidence, and being stonewalled by the executive.
Closed AccountMar 22, 2007
Poor little Tony.Did you know that you were committing occupational suicide when you took that job?I hope they are paying you ALOT of money.
gojedaMar 22, 2007
"Did you read any of these posts? Don't be an assh**e and read dozens of responses above to the exact same misleading point that you just made. Meet me at comment 4 for a rebuttal. Reply to this here and get blocked."Umm, there was nothing misleading in what he said.What part of "this is not a criminal investigation" are you having trouble with again?
gojedaMar 22, 2007
"Bedsides being completely wrong, what do you call the Monica Lewinsky trial? Ever hear "No war for Monica?""No....but I have heard that lying under penality of perjury is generally a bad thing.
fumzMar 22, 2007
gojeda,While it's always amusing listening to Bush supporters, I think I should point out there's something missing from your post. I asserted that Bush would have been a one termer if not for 9/11 and said that he wasn't very popular. You cited a poll saying he had a 50-60% positive approval rating but neglected to include his negative rating? Zogby puts both his negative and positive pre-9/11 ratings even. This is in drastic contrast to his post 9/11 ratings where he gets 80-90 approval and only ~ 17-20 negative. Clearly, the events had a dramatic effect on his polling. Now we both know the man himself is the same guy he's always been: mediocre at best in any endeavor he's ever attempted in either scholastic or professional life, most at home when "on vacation".Bush was not viewed at a success pre-9/11. I will admit that he wasn't viewed as the failure he is today, but nobody was looking at his Presidency as the greatest thing since sliced bread. If Bush is your man, more power to you, but please spare me the nonsense about how everything is legal and the "but Clinton" bs. I personally like to see more character from my leaders, but hey, that's just me. That Tony Snow had to stand up and suggest that it will only take a few more steps so we can "know the truth" is very telling. Why don't we already know the truth? Why is it that people like you are unconcerned about this? Just how many steps does it take to get the truth from this Administration? I suppose I will never understand how people like you seem incapable of looking into the not so distant future? I guess you just assume that a Democrat will never be elected President and he will never take advantage of this dangerous precedent Bush is attempting to set and you're attempting to justify? If it happens, you will really have no right to complain about it as you're in the process of giving that right up in defense of your man. I personally wish that you and others like you would defend your country and Constitution before an individual man... but I guess I can't have everything I want.
generalfaultMar 22, 2007
You are correct, but I see the V.P. doing whatever he thinks is best for his party, not necessarily for the nation. Besides, he was involved with the Nixon WH, and he knows how it works.
generalfaultMar 22, 2007
"I have heard that lying under penality of perjury is generally a bad thing."Good, then you should have been here demanding Libby's resignation and you are probably pissed at GWB lying under penalty of perjury at the State of the Union about Saddam being linked to Al Quada and about him purchasing yellow cake uranium from Niger (which the CIA had already told him was false on both counts).
entropymanMar 23, 2007
Calling it a fishing expedition makes it sound like they don't know what they're looking for. They do -- evidence that BushCo fired US attorneys in the hope that their replacements would either start or stop criminal investigations depending on the subject's party affiliation and election cycle. But if Rove testifies under oath and doesn't lie, and didn't do anything wrong, then he has nothing to worry about. That's what the people behind the PATRIOT act keep telling us average citizens. Is that not true?
gojedaMar 23, 2007
"I've read this sentence so many times on this page its starting to feel like a conservative montra."And it will be repeated again until the meaning of "under oath" sinks in. Your point?"At least we know why the WH does not want the aids to testify UNDER OATH (in big booming voice). They seem to think that 1) Karl and Meyers should be allowed to lie to congress...."If you are going to call someone I liar, at least articulate who or what they are lying about."so long as it's not UNDER OATH (again, in big booming voice) and 2) Karl, Meyers and other aids are very likely to lie to congress."So wait, you started out with the hackneyed, "They lied to Congress..." Now its magically changed to, "very likely to lie". Which is it? Or do you just normally spin reality to quench your partisan thrist?"Then, there is no escape since they did everything they could to s**tcan a president for lying about a blow job UNDER OATH (sick of that damn booming voice)."Of course, Clinton could have just told the truth, or does simply telling the truth no occur to you?
gojedaMar 24, 2007
"Excuse me! If the Executive Branch believes that the Legislative branch has no oversight over them, IMPEACHMENT IS an oversight responsibility, then why do you think they would allow any Branch of the Government to have oversight including the Supreme Court. And yes I know that the Supreme Court is part of the Judicial Branch, Duh!!!! I was making a point about they think they are above the law."Impeachment is a very limited, and I mean very limited process in scope. An impeachment of a President (or any federal or state official) can only take place if there treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors have taken place. The interpertation of this can be wide and changing, therefore it is a politcal process."YES IT DOES, If the Whitehouse is doing something ILLEGAL, or BELIEVED to be, CONGRESS is Constitutionally ALLOWED to put them on trial before Congress and to remove him or her. I think that is "the authority to tell the White House how it should run its administration.", if they believe something illegal or unconstitutional has been done."Wrong again. Congress cannot determine criminality, or even have a trial, because guilt or innocence is determined in a court room. This is BY DESIGN. Congress does NOT have judicial power. Impeachment is a political process like any other.Did you know that Senators can (and have) been impeached? Did you know judges can (and have) been impeached? All it means is that they have been expelled from their office. That does NOT mean they go to jail or even pay a fine.Remember when Nixon resigned? Remember Ford's pardon? The President (yes, the man in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH) can give someone complete immunity from any criminal proceedings. As a matter of fact, a President can (and has) taken people out of jail, literally, and has given them their freedom. Why? Because the President (and not Congress or even the judiciary) HAS that authority, no questions asked. Congress has certain powers only accorded to them (such as impeachment). The judiciary is the last word on interperting the law. etc....This is called "separation of powers". Separate, but equal, and none subourdinate to the next.So, no, Congress does not particularly have oversight over anything except their own affairs. The executive branch does not oversight except their own affairs. The Supreme Court is the master of their domain. Again - ALL by design.