Originally posted by: Genx87
1. You do realize that the Judicial is part of those three branches? As much as you like to try to make everything seem like it is only about the executive...a la Cheney and AG himself...the judicial plays just as big of a party. The fact that they are willing to stack the deck WRT career spots with those that are nothing but loyal to them and their ideology will destroy that branch.
And again ill say this is what has happened since the ratification of our constitution. Why suddenly is it a big deal when Bush stacks the deck? And you were clearly not talking about the judicial branch on these AG firings as AGs fall under the executive branch. But keep back peddling.
First and foremost....you don't know jack about what I was "clearly talking about" or not. So please don't pretend to. Maybe in your mind that was your interpretation, but that doesn't make it a fact that it was my thoughts.
Whether the AG falls under the exec doesn't matter in this subject. If you notice the pattern of my posts here on the topic....I have been consistent in my condemnation of AG as his actions have affected the DoJ. The only comment I even made in reference to him while he was based at the WH is that he was just as morally bankrupt there.
Did the media really create this story or just uncover it? It would appear that you are absolving the administration of any role in this. I don't think that there would have been a story if it weren't for all of the unethical decisions and shady circumstances that went into the firing and those that were put in as replacements. And for the record, I have never read the NYT editorial pages or any other. I like to form my own opinions based on whatever information I am able to dig up.
Yes the media created a story. What would you do if the NYTs ran a story about how terrible it is the congress passed a law yesterday? This is a function of the executive branch, what is the story?
This illogical statement is almost laughable. You pretend that, just because the media breaks a story, that there is no story. I'll do what Denzel Washington always requested in Philadelphia....I'll talk to you like you are a third grader.
It doesn't matter if I get my information about a particular law from the newspaper, then research it and come to the same conclusion. A bad law is still a bad law whether I read about it first in the NYT or was sitting in on the legislature the day they voted on it.
You should take the word "perceived" as such not based on my wishes or desires.....but because the administration has declared everything short of their shopping lists as a presidential record or a matter of national security. It's kinda hard to make a case stick when those that are being investigated control the information to determine whether or not they have actually done what is "perceived".
So you are relying on the Fox Mulder defense. I cant prove it because the shadow govt has covered it up, but more importantly you cant disprove me either.
Fox Mulder himself couldn't break up this cartel. Let me ask you a question.....When the admin has come forth and supplied documents and e-mails, why does it seem that they have always implicated some unethical or highly questionable behaviors on their part?
If you were truly "defending our system" you would be calling for the administration to stop stonewalling every committee that has approached them for information. You would be calling for them to testify under oath instead of "off-the record" with no transcripts allowed.
Seperation of powers, the executive branch come on down and tell the congress who to run their branch? Do they come on down and ask questions on a witch hunt?
They learned from Libby that going under oath about situations from years or months past and not recollecting correctly about a non-crime can land you in jail.
I am not calling for the exec to have to be told how to run their branch. But I am expecting that the exec be forthright with the information requested when there is the appearance of impropriety.
As for your red herring about Libby....I would have thought that you, the admin and the rest of the idiots who parrot this would have learned a more important lesson from his plight....
TELL THE FREAKIN TRUTH WHEN UNDER OATH AND YOU DON'T EVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PERJURY!!!
I know Bush doesn't care about approval ratings. I think that it is for an entirely different reason than you do however. I think that he is too stubborn and stupid to admit that he is ever wrong and thinks that the other ~74% of Americans are the ones that need to wake up. Unfortunately for him....he is as he has always been....wrong again.
And he doesnt care so can we move on?
How about we just continue to still care a little about this country even if he and you don't. What do you say?
