DC Tom Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Only when the left stops saying that the Clinton BJ witch hunt was bigger than the Scooter Libby witch hunt everytime someone from the right brings up the Libby witch hunt. Man, this "we never do that" chit is amazing. Is Joey still allowed to believe that the two witch hunts were completely different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Can we at least stop calling things ---gate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Can we at least stop calling things ---gate? I second. Man-law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Can we at least stop calling things ---gate? Are you trying to start Gategate or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Oh for Pete's sake. Get the analogies right. It's not based on Administration change. It's based on AG change. Clinton only had 1 AG, so there was no reason to change Reno attorneys for both terms. Gonzales was offered to fire the entire team of US attorneys to be consistent with the usual practice of an incoming AG starting his slate with new attorneys. He obviously felt that he didn't want to do that, but got rid of 9 that were problematic. This is what I love about the crying. Worry about the 9 and ignore the 100 others. bull sh--. If that was the case it would have been quickly explained away rather than denying it, followed by multiple different stories as to why they were removed, denials by congresspersons as to who they spoke with, when they spoke with them and what was spoken about, and followed hastily by a high-staffer resigning and lawyering up on the same day they did a document dump. There is nothing normal or business-as-usual about this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Are you trying to start Gategate or something? His pissed cause he's getting sued. GOOGLEGATE!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 bull sh--. If that was the case it would have been quickly explained away rather than denying it, followed by multiple different stories as to why they were removed, denials by congresspersons as to who they spoke with, when they spoke with them and what was spoken about, and followed hastily by a high-staffer resigning and lawyering up on the same day they did a document dump. There is nothing normal or business-as-usual about this story. Ah, but as you have observed over the last 6 years, nothing is simple with this administration. For normally run operations, the response would be, Gonzales came in as the AG, he had an option to fire all attorneys, he declined, and picked 8-9 to get rid of. Instead, they went through a Byzantine exercise to come up with reasons to fire, when all was needed was a "thank you for a job well done over the last 6 years." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Ah, but as you have observed over the last 6 years, nothing is simple with this administration. For normally run operations, the response would be, Gonzales came in as the AG, he had an option to fire all attorneys, he declined, and picked 8-9 to get rid of. Instead, they went through a Byzantine exercise to come up with reasons to fire, when all was needed was a "thank you for a job well done over the last 6 years." You're saying this administration's six-year history of denials, obstruction, contsant obfuscation, utter incompetence and contempt for any and all that do not buy into the Unitard Executive theory means that there really is no there there? So, for those of us who don't drink from the Drudge cesspool or parrot Rush and think we know what that smell emmanating from the White House is, we should rest comfortably knowing that "nope", Abu Gonzales and Rove weren't following up on a political hit list, it's just this admin's business-as-usual, all-in-a-day's work ineptness. The mountain of evidence suggests there isn't any evidence at all. Is that the gist of what you're saying? That certainly puts this current admin in a new light for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 You're saying this administration's six-year history of denials, obstruction, contsant obfuscation, utter incompetence and contempt for any and all that do not buy into the Unitard Executive theory means that there really is no there there? So, for those of us who don't drink from the Drudge cesspool or parrot Rush and think we know what that smell emmanating from the White House is, we should rest comfortably knowing that "nope", Abu Gonzales and Rove weren't following up on a political hit list, it's just this admin's business-as-usual, all-in-a-day's work ineptness. The mountain of evidence suggests there isn't any evidence at all. Is that the gist of what you're saying? That certainly puts this current admin in a new light for me. What I'm saying is that over six years, this administration has demonstrated an unparalleled knack of bungling any attempt of communicating or rationally explaining its actions, giving rise for unabashed partisans like you to find fodder for perceived denials, obstruction, contsant obfuscation, utter incompetence and contempt for any and all that do not buy into the Unitard Executive theory. Just like this case, there is no there there. The there was created by the administration, because they wanted to give the appearance of there not being there, and created a bigger there. Hate to compare it to another administration, but this one has a hard time getting out of its way, because we still live in the days of "you got our guy, so let's get yours." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Just to finally put the idiotic Clinton comparison to rest... Here's the Congressional Research Service report (h/t, Bite by Bite) showing how many US attorneys haven't finished their terms (for those other than admin change-overs). US attorneys who have served less than full four-year terms: 1981-2006 (pdf) Clinton asked for the resignations of two...one for grabbing a reporter by the throat and one for biting a topless dancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 bull sh--. If that was the case it would have been quickly explained away rather than denying it, followed by multiple different stories as to why they were removed, denials by congresspersons as to who they spoke with, when they spoke with them and what was spoken about, and followed hastily by a high-staffer resigning and lawyering up on the same day they did a document dump. There is nothing normal or business-as-usual about this story. Priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Are you trying to start Gategate or something? If GW Bush or Clinton got caught nailing Samantha Carter or Jonas Quinn, would they call it Stargate-gate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 ... and one for biting a topless dancer. You think that would have gotten the guy a promotion in Bubba's administration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 One more time...it is uncommon to remove them mid-term. OH JESUS! Something uncommon happened!!! Wow, the Bush administration did something and made it look terrible because they couldn't explain themselves or communicate with the public. Nothing uncommon about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Just to finally put the idiotic Clinton comparison to rest... Here's the Congressional Research Service report (h/t, Bite by Bite) showing how many US attorneys haven't finished their terms (for those other than admin change-overs). US attorneys who have served less than full four-year terms: 1981-2006 (pdf) Clinton asked for the resignations of two...one for grabbing a reporter by the throat and one for biting a topless dancer. Only in your world is the dismissal of 8 attorneys in mid-term a bigger issue than the wholesale dismissal of all attorneys at the start of a term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 OH JESUS! Something uncommon happened!!! Wow, the Bush administration did something and made it look terrible because they couldn't explain themselves or communicate with the public. Nothing uncommon about that. Bush is just misunderstood, and misunderstands, he's really a good guy. He just doesn't know what the F is going on. Stop picking on him already. He isn't fat legged Hillary, ya know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 OH JESUS! Something uncommon happened!!! Wow, the Bush administration did something and made it look terrible because they couldn't explain themselves or communicate with the public. Nothing uncommon about that. Actually, something startlingly common happened: the Bush administration did nothing wrong, but managed to be secretive enough about it to make it look sinister and great big controversy out of it. Why does no one believe me when I say this administration simply sucks at marketing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Actually, something startlingly common happened: the Bush administration did nothing wrong, but managed to be secretive enough about it to make it look sinister and great big controversy out of it. Why does no one believe me when I say this administration simply sucks at marketing? Because Holcomb's Arm pwns you. That "3.5" thing and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Because Holcomb's Arm pwns you. That "3.5" thing and all. I thought the whole emoticon thing was the real nail my coffin. Don't know how I'm recovering from that beat-down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 I thought the whole emoticon thing was the real nail my coffin. Don't know how I'm recovering from that beat-down... Try and be strong. Oh, and avoid passing by any rope at all costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts