What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
59 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+68Yep.
Another scandal involving Bush administration corruption and abuse of their positions.
And AGAIN they deny what has already been proven.
Not only DENY it, but then REFUSE to supply the presentation so America can see for itself.
Too bad INTEGRITY and HONESTY are not characteristics the GOP searches for in it's members. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41The White House: "Our rise to fascism must continue--at all costs! Ethics, laws and the constitution do not matter!" These people are criminally entertaining. It is time for Hollywood to start a new TV series--"Illegal Wing."
- TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25"The Clintons, to take an example, were perhaps more shameless."
Um, exactly what did the Clintons do that was in any way comparable to starting a war based on fabricated evidence, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans (not to mention the tens of thousands of American soldiers permanently crippled)?
Let's not forget standing like a deer in the headlights and doing nothing over five days while New Orleans was destroyed. Oh, and let's also not forget getting a warning from the FBI that Al Qaeda was determined to strike in the United States by flying planes into buildings in downtown New York and doing nothing except forbidding cabinet members to fly commercial airlines?
And what about Enron, where California, the sixth largest economy in the world, was without reliable power for months due to criminal fraud, where the administration not only refused to act, but talked to the managers of Enron, long-time personal friends of Bush himself, every day -- yet refused to release the tapes of their conversations?
Or what even was comparable to these current lesser but still *criminal* undertakings where the Bush government used our tax dollars and our supposedly non-partisan public servants to push for their own re-elections?
Oh, I forgot. Clinton got a blow-job! - AnaHadWolves, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Dana Perino could put a happy face on a turd. Come to think of it, she IS the happy face on a turd.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Y'know, I'm sure some people will come in here and say something to the effect that other parties/presidents have been guilty of similar things.
To them, I'd say that just about any example they could bring up is equivalent to someone being an alcoholic and getting drunk on a case of Bud vs. this administration discovering how to mainline Everclear. It's as if they took all that's worst about government and refined it, removing things like shame, propriety, and a sense of "perhaps we shouldn't pull this kinda crap." - happyp4nda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21"Now Timmy, I just saw you take those cookies out of the jar."
"No I didn't."
"Will you empty your pockets then if you didn't take them?"
"Lol. No."
"Now Timmy, how am I supposed to believe you if you won't prove it to me?"
"HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME!" - mcguire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20@whaleyboy69: While I don't agree that Clinton's various transgressions were worse than the current administration's, I also hate the argument that since other administrations have done bad things, it's ok for me to too. That sort of political slippery slope should be halted every chance the American public gets, party affiliation be damned.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27Since the Senate, Congress and Judicial Branch continually do nothing, corruption is widespread. What's left? 300 million angry Americans.
- ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Dana is a nappy headed ho.
- ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17America! ***** yeah!
Yes, I'm an American...a disgruntled one.
Hope we can clean house in '08 (I can dream, can't I?) - johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Oh, good lord. Do we have to explain this over and over again?
There is the Hatch act. In a nutshell, it says "You may not use government resources to conduct political campaign actions". So you can't use the Oval Office to make fund raising calls. You can't have the DoD fly a bunch of F14's over a city dropping leaflets saying "Vote for Bedfellow for Senate!" You can't call up the members of the Justice Department and make them sit in a meeting that is a rah-rah rally for a political candidate.
Except - that seems to be what happened. Lurita Doan called for a meeting on Jan. 26 meeting for political appointees at GSA's (General Services Administration) headquarters. There was a powerpoint slide show that showed the White House’s detailed analysis of the 2006 elections and some strategies for the 2008 election, and how these offices could help elect (or reelect) Republican candidates.
So, now we have a government building. With government employees. On government time. On government dime. Talking about how they're going to use their offices to help candidates of their choice. *Which is against the entire Hatch Act.*
So far, there haven't been any arrests, because it's still in the investigations stage, but this is something that smells pretty bad so far, and with the Powerpoint slides, there is clear evidence that this wasn't just "OK, here's how to do a great job", but "Here how to use your offices for political campaigns", which is illegal.
The White House response to this? "Well, we didn't do anything illegal." Except every evidence so far shows they did. And that is called a "scandal" - when your operations have illegal and unethical practices, and you are caught at it. - Billistic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12When are you ***** going to stand up and stop taking this *****? You've gone from revolting and throwing tea off the ship to complaining on a website.
- johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12What kills me is that it's like they don't care any more. Well, OK, sure, so you have the powerpoint presentations that prove that we violated the Hatch Act by having *clearly* campaign based meetings on government time, government time, and government facilities. Which is the whole point of the Hatch Act: Thou shalt not use taxpayer items to to campaign work.
And the response? "Well, we did it, but it's not illegal, because *we* did it. Because by definition, nothing the President does can be illegal, therefore, nothing his administration does is ever illegal, therefore, we didn't break the law."
At least when I catch my 5 year old with his mouth full of candy, he has the decency to act guilty when I ask him if he asked if he could have the candy before he shoveled it into his mouth, because he knew he did something wrong. With these people, it's more like they're my 2 year old, where when he's told "No" shouts back "Yes!" at the top of his lungs (and then gets put into time-out.
A coworker once mentioned that the inability to feel any kind of guilt for wrong actions is the first signs of a sociopath. I guess the question is - can an entire administration have the qualities of a psycopath: inability to discern right from wrong, Unreliability, disregard for obligations no sense of responsibility, in matters of little and great import, Untruthfulness and insincerity, Antisocial behavior which is inadequately motivated and poorly planned, seeming to stem from an inexplicable impulsiveness, and so on? Because if so, this administration is surely a case study. - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9D'yer mean proof like the powerpoint presentation the White House is refusing to release?
And I can find nowhere in the article or description where it states unequivocally that these presentations have violated the law, only that there is concern.
I note too that they included a substantial transcript of the questions asked and Dana's responses.
But please tell me, what important exculpatory information was omitted from the AP article? - nicku, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"Since the Senate, Congress and Judicial Branch continually do nothing, corruption is widespread. What's left? 300 million angry Americans."
Not angry enough. Mostly pacified and stupid if you look at polls on how up to date people are on the issues/political news. - heavensblade23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Impeach.
- monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The Bush administration has been on the "So what? Sue me." mode since they lost the House and Senate.
- mikeyeah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I swear to ***** Science!!! It could come out that Bush & Co. kill 15 newborn babies everyday, eat their brains, and wipe their mouths with the US Constitution & Bill of Rights. And you would still have people who would defend them and say, "So what? Clinton did this and Clinton did that!" It makes my head want to explode!!!
Even I learned at a very young age that "Two wrongs don't make a right." - DeucesWild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7She also looks like she's from the Psi Corps
- rrouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Below are the primary guidelines that active Federal employees need to follow when working or volunteering on a political campaign for federal office. This list is not all-inclusive, and questions regarding the legality of the application of any event or policy should be properly researched or investigated beforehand. This list does not encompass all that is or is not allowed per the regulation.
Active Federal employees may:
* Be a candidate in a political election in which no candidates represent a political party
* Register and vote as they choose
* Assist in Voter Registration Drives
* Express opinions about candidates and issues
* Attend fundraisers and contribute money to political organizations and campaigns
* Volunteer on a campaign
* Recruit volunteers for a political campaign
* Participate in activities such as phone banking and precinct walking
* Display bumper stickers, lawn signs, and other campaign paraphernalia
* Raise money for their union's political action committee from other union members
* Run for nonpartisan offices (that is, parties are not listed on the ballot)
* Volunteer, run for, and hold an office in a local or state political party
Active Federal employees may not:
* Be a candidate in a political election in which any candidate represents a political party
* Raise money for a partisan political campaign
* Allow their names to be used in any fundraising appeal on behalf of a partisan political campaign
* Participate in a phone bank that is engaged in fundraising for a partisan campaign
* Raise money for their union's political action committee from persons other than their fellow union members - hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6History will view Bush and his Administration of fools as the incompetent monsters that they are. Enjoy the 'legacy'.
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@Whaley
You are to be commended on the tone of your reply. Your opinion, while no doubt unpopular here ( I am among those who would disagree), was clearly and succinctly stated without vitriol
Since you are employing an equivalence argument my question to you is this:
Did you support the impeachment of Clinton?
I think you can see where I am going with this.
. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Will the Bushistas ever tire of making excuses for the illegal, immoral and unethical behavior of the Bush administration?
I find the "Clinton did it" excuse to be the single most popular. It is also the most purile. The only proper response is, "if you were against it when Clinton did it, why is it OK now?" - Coven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7it hurt them so much that they gained control of all 3 branches of government. The Democrats were fortunate to wrestle control of at least the Legislative branch for now.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7You know the White House is ***** around when they say, "So what," and downplay it.
Seems like they've been saying "so what" a lot lately. - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's illegal because of the Hatch act. It's wrong because my tax dollars are being used to promote a partisan political agenda that I do not support.
I believe you would have learned all this if the parties were reversed. In fact the Hatch act was originally aimed at activities of the other party. If the Rupubs don't like this law they should not have drafted and passed it. - wageslaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Except Clinton did no such thing. And it if he did, it would be totally irrelevant.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Gee, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the conservatives screaming mad that Clinton was (supposedly) doing this sort of thing? I guess it's okay now.
- maxhrk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4dont dream it.. DO IT. get out of your house. vote someone else than those morons in the house.
- diggbot7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Gotta love how the Bush Administration's ethical standard is - "not illegal."
- happyp4nda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Clinton did it too!!!"
For the record, getting one knocked out by an intern never hurt anybody :P
I was pretty sure that for someone who's job is to enforce the ***** law he's sure doing a great job of putting himself above it. Seriously. wtf. - OoO3xOoO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So commenting on a story on Digg makes you a "hippie"? First of all, there is nothing wrong with political commentary and exchanging ideas about the incompetence of the Bush administration.
I'm sure that the majority of people who can see reality and the incompetence of the Bush administration will vote for the candidate they think can turn this country around.
Sure, it's not a full-blown revolution, but it's something. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Jeffrey Dahmer, munching on a human leg: "What leg? I don't see a leg."
Bush: "Alberto, you're doin a fine job! Hatch Act? I don't see no violation. Hey, kin we save some money by not treatin wounded vets? Kin we git O'Reilly to take them whiny liberals down agin? Well, ah'm tired. I need another vacation. I only had 300 days off this year so far. Hey Dick, shot any lawyers in the face lately? Haw." - enterpriseship, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Bush's theory is that since Republican elected him, he should only serve Republicans. In a post 9/11 world, he can't take a chance in also serving Democrats since they want the enemy to win.
- Dweller99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You really think this all just came to light today?
How about a quick jaunt over to news.google.com where you can find 26 pages of articles on this issue, going back to at least March 28th. Such as this one. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002896.php
Sorry, do those fingers in your ears make it hard to hear me? Maybe if you stop going "lalalalala" while I talk it will help, but here, let me help you "CLINTON DID IT TOO!!!". That about right? Just because they have not been talking about this on Fox does not mean the "mainstream media" (queue ominous music here) has not been talking about it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4smells like treason to me.
- apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You are correct, selling the Lincoln bedroom, if it's for political purposes, is illegal as well. So what? Are you entitled to murder somebody because your neighbor got away with it?
I recall Clinton took quite a bit of flak for that, deservedly. Now, since politicians don't learn anything, we have an even worse scenario. - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Right, I'm aware of that, but I distinctly recall one of the right-wing talking points during Clinton's presidency was that he was doing exactly this kind of thing. It's amazing how conservatives will get up in arms over this over unsubstantiated *rumors* about Democrats doing this but will blithely carry on with their lives given proof that their own guys are doing it. I guess blind allegiance to a political party gives one the capacity for some amazing double standards.
- gopher043, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it's what we do best.
- bigturns, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The Supreme Commander says, "the meetings are not in violation of the Hatch Act". If Heir Bush says no laws were broken that's enough for me. Remember, King George knows best!
Now get back to your minimum wage jobs - remember, dissenters won't be fed the next time the cheese truck rolls through your local compound. - ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@maxhrk
I plan on it, man. I just hope everyone else has the same idea. The mob is fickle. - Billistic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well you tried the hippy thing back in the 60's, maybe it's time to do some ass kicking?
- douglasfactors, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"no controlling legal authority"
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2we all know... that if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about right?
- foomojive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ya know, i am generally conservative and while i don't agree with many of the actions of the government over the past few years, the vast majority of the uninformed, assuming, hateful BS in the bush comments on digg.com makes me roll my eyes. This, however, is a statement I can actually agree with.
- brendanc, on 10/12/2007, -13/+13The more ***** news about the right, the better we'll do in 2008. I'm still hoping that Gore runs, because there is no doubt in my mind that 1) he will win and 2) he'll do a damn good job and be a very progressive president.
My only fear is that Americans are duped again by an argument that Bush used against Kerry in 2004. Bush said that Kerry supported gay marriage, even though that was clearly not the case. Kerry didn't support it, but he wasn't AGAINST it either. Taking no side is not taking a side, you GOP *****. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Well I still don't understand how this is any more illegal than selling the Lincoln bedroom, or selling nuclear secrets to china for campaign contributions. Both of those sound like violations of the same act....
- mikegre, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Guess what, kids...it's YOU who are the sheeple!
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Its what hippies do... let out lots of hot air but they don't actually accomplish anything useful. So then things don't go their way so they repeat the cycle ad infinitum.
- hmmmok, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Cool! A political hack like Kucinich can really capitalize on this kinda news!
Oh wait... -
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is