[QUOTE=Weirddave]
I hope you find some, I really do, because a systematic policy of discrimination would be illegal, but I suspect it’ll wind up like most of the Left’s accusations of conspiracy against Bush and the Republicans; full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
[/QUOTE]
Look, we know this Administration engaged in a criminal conspiracy to get us into a war based on lies; that’s no secret any longer. That does not necessarily implicate them in any other conspiracies, but it does make their guilt more plausible.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
I guess that leaves you with the task of providing the proof for the allegations that you made in your last post. I eagerly await. I hope you find some, I really do, because a systematic policy of discrimination would be illegal
[/quote]
Try here, then:
So, who in the Bush Administration is willing to get up on the stand, and testify under penalty of perjury that this didn’t happen? (Hell, is anyone denying it without such strictures? I’ve just heard crickets.)
I’m curious about what conspiracies you’re talking about.
Conspiracy to skew the pre-war evidence of WMDs and Saddam-AQ connection?
Conspiracy to lie about the reasons for going to war?
Conspiracy to spy on Americans?
Conspiracy to make a lot of noise about catching terrorists, then having to let them go, or try them on lesser charges, or just hold them forever at Gitmo without much evidence against them?
Conspiracy to suppress the vote amongst Democratic-leaning demographic groups and in Democratic-leaning areas?
Conspiracy to hire and fire U.S. attorneys based on the partisan orientation of those they were investigating and indicting?
I’m sure I’ve overlooked a few. If you feel like arguing this one, I’d be delighted to open up a new thread on the topic. Just say the word.
RTFirefly
That is quite a research job you did there.
This part of that quote is very interesting:
In this administration, being Christian and conservative are highly regarded, but it seems the deepest reverence and respect is for mediocrity and incompetence.
[QUOTE=wolf_meister] RTFirefly
That is quite a research job you did there.
[/QUOTE]
The Speaker’s blog is more than occasionally interesting these days.
But take note that this isn’t proof of wrongdoing; this is a letter from a group of anonymous career Justice employees who are unhappy with the state of affairs.
However, what Weirddave said was “I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be upset about.” This would be it. The only question is, is it true, or just some bozos making something up?
It could still be some bozos making something up. But it’s consistent with the rest of the news coming out of the Ministry of Justice these days. And given the track record of this Administration, I’d cheerfully put a bet down on this one’s being backed by something more solid.
[QUOTE=wolf_meister]
In this administration, being Christian and conservative are highly regarded, but it seems the deepest reverence and respect is for mediocrity and incompetence.
[/QUOTE]
I’d say the *deepest * reverence etc. is for personal loyalty to The Decider. But it does require mediocrity, and often incompetence, to be that way.
The real problem here is that so many of these appointees are civil service – which will make it that much harder for the next administration to purge them, as it should.
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
equally inept and unqualified die-hard God-fearing Chrisitian people no less. Seriously, has he appointed anybody to anything who wasn’t a good Christian?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think he has appointed very many good Christians.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The real problem here is that so many of these appointees are civil service – which will make it that much harder for the next administration to purge them, as it should.
Can anyone see a way around this?
[/QUOTE]
IIRC, most, if not all, appointees are political in nature and will thus be gone when Shrub is. Even if they’re not, I can’t imagine them sticking around after Shrub leaves, since there’ll be a lot of pressure by people who know what the hell they’re doing to get rid of the idjits.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The real problem here is that so many of these appointees are civil service – which will make it that much harder for the next administration to purge them, as it should.
Can anyone see a way around this?
[/QUOTE]
One good thing about a bloated government is that there are plenty of places you can put someone just to get them out of the way. I am getting a picyure in my head of Rob Schneider as “Copy Machine Boy”.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
IIRC, most, if not all, appointees are political in nature and will thus be gone when Shrub is. Even if they’re not, I can’t imagine them sticking around after Shrub leaves, since there’ll be a lot of pressure by people who know what the hell they’re doing to get rid of the idjits.
[/QUOTE]
It’s hard to get rid of idjits if they’re in civil-service jobs. They may get pressured, but they’ll interpret it as persecution for the Lord’s sake, and will count it a badge of honor.
[QUOTE=Harborwolf]
I’m not a fan of Bush, Pat Robertson, or religion as a whole really, but what the president has done is neither the worst thing he’s done in office nor is it at all surprising that his administration would consider religion to be a deciding factor for employment. I’m not saying that it’s right, but I find it to be far from outrage worthy. More in the neighborhood of disappointing.
[/QUOTE]
At this point, I mainly hope this aspect of this particular fuckup stays in the news. IMO, Pat Robertson speaks to a rather narrow sector at a far end of the electorate. I think many Christians of both parties would be at least mildly troubled by the idea of an ideologue of any stripe intentionally seeking - and being provided - access to influence the administration in this manner.
If not illegal, there is at least an element of “secrecy” or underhandedness, in what appears to be giving favoritism to people who will help tilt things in your favor. Wierdave says “What’s the big deal? He’s just hiring folks who agree with him.” I must have missed it when Bush openly identified as a follower of Pat Robertson, or announced an intention to hire excessively from what strikes me as a very far end of the spectrum. Instead I thought I heard crap about intending to be “a uniter not a divider.”
If nothing else, this should wake up the countless voters who threw up their hands and voted for Bush saying, “He seems like a sincere guy, someone I’d like to have a beer with. And BTW, how much can one individual screw things up anyway?”
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
It’s hard to get rid of idjits if they’re in civil-service jobs. They may get pressured, but they’ll interpret it as persecution for the Lord’s sake, and will count it a badge of honor.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but when that pressure comes from Congress (who’re being told by the rank and file what idjits their bosses are), it’s a little hard for the Lord to intervene on their behalf, for some reason.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Yes, but when that pressure comes from Congress (who’re being told by the rank and file what idjits their bosses are), it’s a little hard for the Lord to intervene on their behalf, for some reason.
[/QUOTE]
The Lord doesn’t have to, if they’re in career civil service positions (i.e. not political appointees, which is why it would be illegal if proven true), and haven’t totally screwed the pooch on the job.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
The Lord doesn’t have to, if they’re in career civil service positions (i.e. not political appointees, which is why it would be illegal if proven true), and haven’t totally screwed the pooch on the job.
[/QUOTE]
