Your blog trackbacks are not working. I posted something about this post at my blog Seeing the Forest, the trackback fails, with this message: "Ping 'http://www.democrats.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1540' failed: Invalid TrackBack ID '1540'"

"Several of the federal investigators were also deeply concerned that then attorney general John Ashcroft was personally briefed regarding the details of at least one FBI interview with Rove, despite Ashcroft's own longstanding personal and political ties to Rove, the Voice has also learned."

There is no way in hell that Bush and Cheney were out of the loop on this one...no way. As Bush's Attorney General, Ashcroft would have had to have told the President after been briefed or be an accessory. Bush would have delegated the matter to Cheney. Gonzales, as the Chief White House Counsel, would have been asked for his opinion as to what course Ashcroft had to take. (Being a lawyer, I bet he put it in writing.)

So they have all known and have been protecting for over two years someone they knew committed at least perjury in a case involving the felony of outing a CIA agent...so Bush could run for re-election without at least one White House indictment hanging over his campaign.

Let's see if the MSM will sit by and let Bush take Fizgerald off the case. We are reaching a crisis in our democracy. The Chief Executive should have removed Rove as soon as he knew of the inconsistency in his testimony.

Traitorgate! Betrayed by Rove, and the Administration, this country has lost all integrity. We've replaced government with a farce, and the Zom-Bushes cannot see the light, nor will they even try.

And we're supposed to be surprised because.....? Let's throw Jeff Gannon back into the leak/security breach mix. What's going on down at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?

I know I'm a moderate reader of a strongly partisan Web site, but let's not read too much into the appointment of a "special prosecutor". Ashcroft is required by law to appoint a special independent prosecutor anytime an investigation appears to have any possible connection to the administration ... just like Janet Reno was forced to appoint a special independent prosecutor (or doesn't anyone want to remember that Janet Reno actually appointed Kenneth Starr, who we later screamed to the heavens for being out to get Clinton). Nixon fired his investigator (was it Mitchell?) when he refused to call off the Watergate dogs, which is what drove the special independent prosecutor law. Clinton / Reno were not allowed to fire Starr, Ashcroft / Bush / Rove will not be allowed to fire their independent prosecutor.

maybe it should be reminded that while Starr was appointed, no one authorized him to spend the amount of money that he did on a witchhunt that revolved around adultery. if dems were to spend the same amount on a thing like the downing street memo, they would be breaded and fried by the corporate media for it.

there's a very big problem with lying about having sex with an intern. and yet, a much larger problem exists with lying about the reasons for war in which our men and women die and yet no one talks about it?

so who wants to make the case about a liberal media now?

Posted by lw on August 16, 2005 at 12:58 PM

the special prosecutor legislation that would have prevented bush/rove from being able to fire the special prosecutor as Nixon did was allowed to lapse in 1999.

the special prosecutor legislation that would have prevented bush/rove from being able to fire the special prosecutor as Nixon did was allowed to lapse in 1999.

Posted by nyeiren on August 16, 2005 at 01:03 PM

I was not aware of that ... thank you ... but can we at least wait until Bush / Aschcroft / Rove fire Fitzgerald before condemning him for firing him?

Ah, the problems with being a moderate reader of either a "left-wing.com" or "right-wing.com" web site. If you don't agree, you're obviously a member from the other extreme. The only disagreement tolerated is whether Bush should be boiled in oil or burned at the stake.

I always thought Starr was chartered to find out whether Clinton committed perjury, which last time I checked was still a felony. Starr was commissioned as a special prosecutor to find the truth. Yes, it was about sex ... about adultery. But the entire Paula Jones lawsuit was about sexual harassment. Since it was all "only about sex", did that give Clinton the right to lie about anything and everything concerning the case? And if Clinton hadn't lied in the first place (then used the power of his office to obstruct the investigation all the way to the Supreme Court, which is what I had the biggest issue with) the truth would have been found at much less cost.

And whether I think Bush lied or not (make no mistake, I do!) lying to the American public is not a felony, and is not an impeachable offense. Lying under oath in a court of law is.

I thought it was against the law to lie to congress. Isnt that why they are looking at Palmero?

I'm not trying to nitpick, as I said I think Bush lied, but Palmero took an oath at the start of Congressional steroid testimony, which at that point is effectively the same as being in a court of law. It's the difference between lying to Congress and lying under oath to Congress, Bush wasn't giving sworn testimony.

Big lies will hopefully mean big trouble for Bush and Rove:
http://www.clevercaption.com/96.html

I was not aware of that ... thank you ... but can we at least wait until Bush / Aschcroft / Rove fire Fitzgerald before condemning him for firing him?

Posted by MK on August 16, 2005 at 04:06 PM

NO

What is wrong with you? Go back and read Novak's column. They did it. Someone did this deliberately and then lied to the grand jury.

The rest have known the truth for two years and have remained silent pretending they didn't. The prosecutor knows different from the conflicting testimony. The only way they will be able to save their skins is to fire Fizgerald and replace him with one of their buddies.

It's going to happen. Start facing the inevitable.

Palamero is a baseball player. He's not an elected government official who took an oath to always uphold the law. Not reporting a felony or withholding evidence is a crime. Plotting with the felon to commit the crime or cover it up afterwards is a high crime...if you are sitting Vice President or President.

Cheney (and probably Bush) is in jeopardy. They will do whatever they have to protect themselves.

Ah, the problems with being a moderate reader of either a "left-wing.com" or "right-wing.com" web site...

So many people consider themselves "middle of the road". They think they are unbiased.
They want to be unbiased. It is a noble goal. I too wish to be unbiased. But how do we really know if we are unbiased. Is it because we do not favor either side? What if one side is behaving badly and getting poor results. Does an unbiased person continue to support both sides evenly?

I know I have a bias against Bush and the republicans. I do not trust them. I have not always had this bias. It is based on experience. It began to develop over the course of the Clinton witch hunt. I sat and watched the proceedings in growing disbelief. This investigation initiated to investigate whitewater which found absolutely no wrong-doing. The investigation broadened under the pretense of establishing a pattern of lying. The investigation broadened to include an investigation of his personal sex life. This investigation by Ken Starr who is by no stretch of the imagination non-partisan. Anyone who could watch these events and listen to the impeachment proceedings and remain neutral is not unbiased but rather brain dead. Most of the country saw it for what it was. But it polarized the entire country. The effects of that polarization remain today. A wedge was thrust between us. That wedge driven by the republican party for political gain at the expense of this country.

But how can anyone claim to be neutral who is aware of the facts we know today? This country was told Iraq posed an immanent threat and that they had WMD’s (we supposedly knew where they were hidden and we knew how much they had) and were involved in 9/11. Those have been proven to be false. The Downing Street memo confirms that the Bush administration intended to make war and were “fixing the data”. The reports by former administration officials from Bush’s own cabinet confirm that he was planning war shortly after he entered the whitehouse. Also, this country was running surpluses. We were told we needed tax cuts because the economy was generating too much revenue. Then we were told we needed tax cuts because the economy was in trouble and needed stimulus. Now we are seeing red as far as the CBO can see. We are no longer respected around the world. China was considered more favorably than the US in the last international poll taken of OUR allies! Fiscal policy, domestic policy, foreign policy…all failures. We have been lied to; secrets have been kept from us for political reasons. Wedges continue to be driven between the people for partisan gain. So much for the “uniter”.

Anyone who remains neutral in spite of all these facts is hardly unbiased.

It's going to happen. Start facing the inevitable.

Posted by SandyH on August 16, 2005 at 08:44 PM

SandyH - with this group you are right!

One thing for sure, we are beginning to understand that no matter how tight the noose gets on their necks, they always managed to "wiggle" out from under it.

I just want to know why all of a sudden the prosecutor gets a new boss almost at the end of the investigation?

Me think - hhmmmm..... the Bush Administration knew they couldn't fire "Fritz" now, so what they did was put in their "watchdog" in doing so, he will report back on who's who's on "The Indictment Watchlist" - giving them ample time to fabricate more lies.

Anytime a new boss comes in saying "nothing is going to change" -- everything is going to change!

Unbiased, no. I dislike Bush and the far right, but the methods of Clinton and the far left were no different. Perjury is perjury, even if it's "only about sex". And I'm sorry, if I was caught at work getting my Johnson waxed under the desk from an intern, I would have been fired, consensual or not.

But while we're on the Downing Street memo and WMDS ... yes, I believe Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq at all costs. But once I accepted that perhaps Iraq indeed did not have WMDS, I also asked the question "Where are / were the WMDs that Clinton lied about when he ordered the bombing of Iraq on the second day of impeachment hearings in December, 1998." He insisted the bombings could not wait, Iraq was rebuilding their WMD programs and was an imminent threat. There was a call from leading Democrats to postphone the impeachment hearings because of the "crisis". And when Republicans questioned the timing, they were called unpatriotic, traitors ... does this sound like what the Republicans call anyone who questions the war in Iraq.

The full Clinton speech after the 1998 Iraq bombing, and the Repubican and Democrat reactions are in a Time magazine article, I cannot find the link right now. Read this someday in light of what we now apparently know about Iraq's lack of WMDs. Tell me Clinton didn't lie like hell to justify bombing Iraq? Can you say "wag the dog".

Both extremes pull the same crap, it's just a matter of how they justify it. And as I saw when posting my opinions on other blogs, usually if you're not firmly on one extreme you are considered a member of the other extreme.

"Both extremes pull the same crap, it's just a matter of how they justify it. And as I saw when posting my opinions on other blogs, usually if you're not firmly on one extreme you are considered a member of the other extreme."

Posted by MK on August 17, 2005 at 08:46 AM

You sound so much like my moderate friends who look to the sins of the "other side" to justify the sins of the current administration. This is faulty logic. As Chicago asked in the posting above "Does an unbiased person continue to support both sides evenly?" The answer is no! Should a teacher grade a paper based on the correctness of another student? NO! This folly of justification of the Bush administration sins bacause of the sins of the Clinton administration is just not good thinking. We must look at this administration for what it is. They rise or fall on their own merit or lack of it. You could not ask a jury to acquit a case based on the guilt of another case..... don't you see how dangerous that logic could be? The Bush administration has it all wrong and you should not be their defender. We all have the responsibility to ensure that they are serving the people who did (and did not) elect them. If they are serving themselves we have to call them out!

Gigi, I am NOT using the sins of the Clinton administration to justify the sins of the current administration. But I call myself moderate because I am not at either extreme (my uncle says I'm a Reagan Democrat, fiscally conservative, socially liberal) ... and I see the same crap pulled by both extremes. I refuse to excuse Clinton's lies, his months of obstruction of justice, or his "wag the dog" bombings under the guise that the end justified the means any more than I can justify Bush's actions.

In four years, I expect to be arguing with folks from "right-wing.com" about how nasty the current Democratic administration is, reminding them that Bush pulled the same crap and deceptions.

On the other hand ... Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush in 2008 ... do I want a repeat of the Clinton years or a repeat of the Bush years ... bring back Ross Perot.

I was disgusted with the Clinton administration by the end, with all the sideshows. I was more disgusted with Clinton after 9/11, once it became apparent that 9/11 was rooted far before Bush took office. Clarke claimed they briefed the current administration in January 2001 about how dangerous Al Quada was ... if they were that dangerous why hadn't the Clinton administration done anything? And if it was that critical an issue, as Clarke claimed, why hadn't Sandy Berger, Clarke's boss, even attended the all-important briefing.

I voted Bush 2000, I couldn't shake the image of Al Gore standing up there after the House of Representatives voted for impeachment, basically defending perjury and months of obstruction of justice on Clinton's part. Is this what the Constitution meant to Al Gore?

I voted Kerry 2004, even though I couldn't shake him defending the Bush administration for the longest time over Iraq, because he had agreed Iraq had WMDs and was an imminent threat. In a debate with Dean in December 2003, he ridiculed Dean's anti-Iraq war position. He only changed his tune when it became politically expedient to do so. And since Kerry sat on the Senate intelligence committee from 1993-2001, one would think that his original position on Iraq and WMDs had some valid basis ... I did not vote FOR Kerry, I voted AGAINST Bush. In retrospect it was a lot like 1996 (there's your Clinton era parallel again!) no one voted FOR Dole, they voted AGAINST Clinton.

MK,
I believe you are trying hard to be “moderate”. I just don’t think you are accomplishing it. Lets look at your posts and see if we can spot a pattern.

1. “or doesn't anyone want to remember that Janet Reno actually appointed Kenneth Starr, who we later screamed to the heavens for being out to get Clinton”
NOTICE:Appears your taking sides here. Just because Reno appointed Starr, does that mean he was not a partisan. Look at the facts impartially and most all agree that Starr went way beyond the call and trumped up the charges. Notice: you assume Starr’s MOTIVES were unbiased

2. “Starr was commissioned as a special prosecutor to find the truth”
Notice: you again assume Starr’s motives were pure.

3. “Since it was all "only about sex", did that give Clinton the right to lie about anything and everything concerning the case?”
Notice: you assume Clinton is lying “about anything and everything”. His motives are assumed evil.

4. “And if Clinton hadn't lied in the first place (then used the power of his office to obstruct the investigation all the way to the Supreme Court, which is what I had the biggest issue with) the truth would have been found at much less cost.”
Notice: Clinton is assumed to be obstructing justice because he does not roll over and tell Starr he was having an affair. This does not seem like a moderate assessment of the situation. Could his motive been an attempt to protect Monica, Hilary, Chelsea? No, his motives are assumed to be purely evil.

5. “It's the difference between lying to Congress and lying under oath to Congress, Bush wasn't giving sworn testimony.”
Notice: Bush’s motives are not really questioned. Bush is given the benefit of the doubt. Suddenly it does not matter that he is lying because he is not under oath. Evidently it also does not matter that these lies cost lives.

6. “And I'm sorry, if I was caught at work getting my Johnson waxed under the desk from an intern, I would have been fired, consensual or not.”
Notice the harsh judgement of Clinton. Granted what Clinton did was wrong. But while he was “at work”, it could also be considered his residence. It was consensual and she was of age. Do we remove elected officials for having affairs? Think about this, why was Clinton put under oath and asked if he had sex with this woman? Perhaps we should do that to all politicians on their first day in office. Would Bush be willing to go under oath to be asked questions about drug use? My impartial opinion is that he would not. Heck, he refused to go under oath to testify before the 9/11 commission and he still needed Cheney to hold his hand.

7. “But while we're on the Downing Street memo and WMDS ... yes, I believe Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq at all costs. But once I accepted that perhaps Iraq indeed did not have WMDS, I also asked the question "Where are / were the WMDs that Clinton lied about when he ordered the bombing of Iraq on the second day of impeachment hearings in December, 1998." He insisted the bombings could not wait, Iraq was rebuilding their WMD programs and was an imminent threat. There was a call from leading Democrats to postphone the impeachment hearings because of the "crisis". And when Republicans questioned the timing, they were called unpatriotic, traitors ... does this sound like what the Republicans call anyone who questions the war in Iraq.”
This is probably the most telling post of all. Notice that Bush is described as “determined to go to war” as if his motive was to defend this nation as opposed to lying or at least misleading the American people for political gain. Notice conversely that Clinton is described as lying. Notice also that Clinton’s motive for the bombing of Iraq is not determined to be to defend this nation, but rather has somehow been determined to be an attempt to avoid the impeachment proceedings.

Here is a simple “smell test” to see if people are being fair and impartial. Look at their statements and see if they are dealing with the facts of an issue or if they are making assumptions about the motives of the people involved. In the cases above, mostly it is the motives.

Here is a web site that has a transcript of Clinton’s speech after the Iraq bombings. Read it and then go back and see if the description of it by MK provided earlier seems accurate.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

I am sorry, MK, but you are not looking at things impartially. I do believe you are trying and I believe you think you are. But I think you have been duped by the right. They totally sold you on this impeachment thing. You foster a hatred of Clinton that is pretty obvious and is clouding your judgment on many of the events surrounding the witch hunt. You might want to go back and research some of those events to establish a more realistic perception of what really went on now that we are years past it. It may not be possible for you, but I think it would be worth a try. I will say this, that while you do carry a hatred of Clinton, it has not completely clouded your judgment regarding the republicans. You are able to see some of the failures of the current administration. You voted against Bush so that really leads me to believe that you are really moderate except for the bias you carry against Clinton. Also, I am sure some of your posts are sort of an attempt to play “devils advocate” since this is a partisan site. Keep trying.

Chicago, replying quickly ... yes, I am playing devils advocate. My opinion is that both sides pull the same dishonest and illegal crap, it's just a question of their motives in doing so.

(1-2) As part of Starr's ever-expanding investigations, he won quite a few convictions along the way. Including Webster Hubbel, Jim Guy Tucker, Jim and Susan McDougald, all former business partners of Clinton.

(3-4) Clinton initially lied about Monica in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment case, which was "all about sex". That is the case I refer to when those who defend Clinton tell me it was "all about sex."

The obstruction of justice came when Reno added this to Starr's list. Starr wanted Monica and other White House personnel to testify, Clinton used the power of the White House to obstruct this testimony all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled (9-0!) that blocking this testimony did not fall under the rights of executive privledge.

(5) I believe Bush lied to Congress. His motievs are clear, he wanted an excuse to attack Iraq. But it was asked why this is not criminal or grounds for impeachment, the answer is simple ... he was not testifying under oath. That doesn't make it right, but that's why it is not impeachable in and of itself.

(6) Clinton was put under oath and forced to testify about Monica because he was charged in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. What has Bush been charged with in connection with drug use that would call for him to be put under oath concerning his drug use? Outside of Kitty Kelly's book, that is.

Clinton was never asked to testify about HIS alleged cocaine use. Even though in the Roger Clinton drug trial, Rogoer is caught on tape saying "This is good stuff. I've got to get some of this for my brother. He's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner." Personally, I found that far more credible than Kitty Kelly claiming she had a tape of Bush's estranged brother-in-law (which was denied by brother-in-law), then never revealing it.

(7) Well, since Iraq had no WMDs, what was Clinton's motive for bomming Iraq except to distract from the impeachment proceedings? I was suspicious of his motives at the time, but I tempered it with "Well, we all know Iraq has WMDs and WMD programs". Looking back now makes it even worse.

None of this excuses the current administration of its sins. But we (well, I'm obviously not the far left) act so indignant about everything the administration does while dismissing the lies and corruption of the Clinton administration as fantasies of the right wing nut jobs.

MK,
You're completely missing the point. If you could objectively look at your points, you might be able to see it. Here is the catch.
You state,
"My opinion is that both sides pull the same dishonest and illegal crap, it's just a question of their motives in doing so."
But you do not and cannot know their motives. This is an age old ploy used in propoganda. Demonize the opponent by attacking their motives. You have been duped by the right and their well oiled smear and propaganda machine. Try to ignore Fox news when they tell you what a politicians motives are. They do not know. All anyone knows is what they tell you their motives are. And guess what, they are politicians. All you can really look at are their actions and their results. Actions will always demonstrate motives. And you (unfortunately) assign good motives to one side and bad motives to the other. That is not moderate or unbiased.

I will let you have the last word on this. Attack Clinton some more if it makes you feel better, but I am moving on. This is way off subject.

I do not watch Fox news. Obviouslly way to the right, I don't trust their motives. I don't watch CNN either. They are not as far to the left as Fox is to the right ... but they are slanted to the left, I can't say I trust them much either.

I'm not trying to danalyze or debate Clinton's motives or Bush's motives for dishonesty as being good or bad. One cannot pick or choose when it is okay to subvert the Constitution. I never cared that Clinton got a hummer in the Oval office. I did care that he committed perjury in a Federal sexual harassment lawsuit and (under oath) to Congress lying about it.

------------

I'm an equal opportunity cynic. Picking one subject ... in 1996, the Republicans went after Clinton on the subject of foreign presidential campaign contributions. They demanded hearings, investigations, the like, they were appalled. 38 million dollars has been collected for Clinton in foreign campaign contributions, that was offensive, obscene, etc.

So I looked it up. I dug through the campaign finance reports. Dole and the Republicans had collected 21 million in similar foreign campaign contributions. So I concluded that to the Republicans, while 21 million was okay, 38 million was totally obscene, illegal, etc, and should be invesigated and prosecuted.

SSDD. Same bullsh*t, different day ...