During the Clinton Administration, anti-Clintonists spent 8 years and, iirc, $100 million investigating the singular land deal of Whitewater. Nothing came to fruition from these investigations. Now, many of these same accusers are trying to roadblock an investigation on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Received a low-interest loan from a company that he was a director–a practice he now condemns
Sold a significant amount of equity securities of above company two months before the company announced lower than expected earnings
An internal memo written by the company's president warned directors of worsening liquidity problems
Bush was extremely late in filing this transaction with the SEC
Bush was investigated by the SEC but was given the light treatment (his father was the President at the time)
He gave different answers to these questions during his gubernatorial campaign and recently
Bush recently gave a speech condemning many of the same things he is accused of doing
Lets go over the Cheney file
Was Minister of Defense during first Bush administration
Was hired by Halliburton in order to bring in the myriad lucrative contacts he made during his post in office
As CEO of Halliburton, Cheney is accused of recognizing as revenue uncollected and estimated overage charges in order to inflate earnings on the books.
Cheney refuses to discuss this issue at all and his aides refer reporters’ questions to Halliburton
Cheney’s CEO credentials were touted during the campaign; he was presented as a corporate problem-solver yet he is conspicuously absent from the current debate
Halliburton claims that Cheney was completely in the know
Asymmetric information, what Cheney is guilty of if above is true, is recognized by economists as the greatest enemy of free and efficient markets.
How can anyone honestly say that an investigation of both these individuals is not in order? The business of America is business and a lack of trust from foreign investors in the integrity of our system will cause an outflow of foreign investment. Bush and Cheney were marketed as the MBA/CEO ticket whose expertise in business would strengthen the US economy. Now it seems that Bush is too busy playing the role of hero and Cheney is too busy hiding to answer any of the charges.
Honestly, this situation frightens me much more than a singular land deal or a blowjob. The Prez and Veep are chipping away at the very bedrock of our economic system. Let’s call them in to testify the way Clinton was forced to testify in the Paula Jones trial. As Republicans made clear during the Clinton scandals: we only want to know the truth. And, just as Bush has called for jail terms for CEO’s who misrepresent company information (or simply allow book cooking), I call for Cheney to be charged with perjury and serve jail time. Bush just needs to be impeached. Remember, its not that hard to do anymore.
Sssshhh, Mambo; you’re going to completely give away the Massive Left Wing Conspiracy (MLWC®) we got going to use a financial investigation as cover to maneuver George into lying under oath about snorting snack food (you don’t think that pretzel incident was completely innocent, do you?).
[sub]Damn blabbermouth conspiracists… it’s hard enough planning the overthrow of a sitting President without guys giving away your best arguments…[/sub]
Scylla, it’s simply applying the same standards to Republican leaders that they themselves have so piously proclaimed as universal. To do any less in their cases would be moral relativism - which they also have piously decried. We really don’t have a choice, do we?
Please ascribe the percentage of the dollar amount spent investigating Whitewater you feel was spent solely because opponents of Clinton were out to find something - anything wrong without regard to cost/benefit?
Whitewater payback may be the most valid reason for hammering Bush on this one. People in glass houses…
Received a low-interest loan from a company that he was a director–a practice he now condemns
And this is illegal? Or are you suggesting impeachment is in order merely for hypocrisy?*
Sold a significant amount of equity securities of above company two months before the company announced lower than expected earnings
Agreed that this raises a spectre of insider trading. but wasn’t it investigated at the time?
An internal memo written by the company’s president warned directors of worsening liquidity problems
Bush was extremely late in filing this transaction with the SEC
Bush was investigated by the SEC but was given the light treatment (his father was the President at the time)
Yes - I see he was investigated. Where is your evidence that he was “given the light treatment”?*
He gave different answers to these questions during his gubernatorial campaign and recently
Bush recently gave a speech condemning many of the same things he is accused of doing
Again, where do these rise to the level of impeachable offenses? With the possible exception of item 2, you have not alleged any conduct that could be considered a violation of criminal law. And your evidence for number two seems rather light… or, possibly, a big pile of… well… number two.
Or maybe it could be categorised as “Mutually Assured Destruction.” If the Democratic leadership would show that they have guts enough to play as hard as the VRWC, maybe that would really bring a “change of tone” to Washington.
I say we wait awhile before considering impeachment proceedings. There’s still a hell of a lot of document requests by Congress and panicky stonewalling (in the name of “national security”) by the White House to be done. Then we’ll start hearing about the “missing eighteen files” or some such … deja vu.
Nice one, Scylla. Sarcastic tone noted. Damn nice of you to:
Ignore my question.
Misinterpret my answer.
The discomfort suffered by a group of people that spent 8 years trying to tear down the Presidency now realizing that it won’t just stop because they happen to like this President amuses me to no end. “Mom! He hit me back!”
I don’t think that that is a valid reason at all. Impeaching a President is serious shit. (Or should be, anyway.) It has implications far beyond just doing something bad to Bush and Cheney. It has implications for the entire nation.
For one thing, if both Bush and Cheney were to be impeached and convicted, and removed from office, Dennis Hastert (Dennis Hastert, for chrissakes!) would succeed to the Presidency. That is . . . a bad idea. A really bad idea.
For another thing, having two impeachments within 6 years would look really, really bad to the rest of the world. We’re having a tough enough time with the EU and international bodies, without making it look like we can’t elect a President without the other body trying to impeach him.
The Cheney accusations seem to be a lot more serious than the Bush ones, and I think they should be investigated by the proper authorities. If it looks like they are going to stick, and rise to the level of impeachability, I think Bush should ask for Cheney’s resignation.
This isn’t a game, you know – lose the Presidency, try to impeach the other guy’s winner. This is removing the President of the United States. This should be done for only the most serious reasons. And no, to forestall the obvious, while I think Clinton lied under oath I don’t think it rose to the level of impeachment.
Even though the conduct described in your link took place before Mr. Bush became president, I agree that, if true, it would be grounds for a serious investigation. Lying under oath is a serious crime.
However, as I recall, and as your link suggests, the evidence that it’s Mr. Bush that lied is slight. Indeed, McNeil had previously denied any conversations with the governor, and his deposition testimony was the first time he aired that version of the story. In other words, on the very limited review of credibility I can must here, it’s McNeil’s testimony that seems untrue, not Bush’s.
But I would absolutely support a more complete investigation into the matter. If credible evidence arises that Bush interfered with the SCI investigation, and lied about it under oath, I would call for his resignation from the presidency.
I agree it isn’t a game. But I also expect law-abiding conduct from the Chief Executive. If it developed that Bush lied in a deposition in 1999, he has no business being President in 2000.
pldennison
Sorry, don’t buy that one at all. I actually would have agreed with you a few years ago, but it’s too late to put that toothpaste back in the tube. Apparently, impeaching a President is not that big a deal and should absolutely be done for the purpose of revenge. Once again, I say that this should have been thought of before the witch hunts of Whitewater, either that, or everyone’s going to have to be a LOT more careful about who they nominate.
A good friend of mine thinks the whole pretzel thing was horseshit, and he makes an interesting case: How many men do you know who watch playoff games by themselves? Now, how many of those men are also President, and would miss such a glorious opportunity to let contributors get up close and personal? The man wasn’t alone doing pretzels, he was alone… * doing cocaine! *
Some of my friends are even more anti-Bush than I am, if that’s possible.
Speaking of which…about this impeaching business? Absolutely!Reasons? Reasons? We don’t need no stinkin’ reasons! Just count me in!
Upon review, I decide to actually leave in “doing” pretzels, which was originally a mistake. Now I think I’m gonna go do some eggs…
Well, then I guess we disagree, grem. “Revenge” is a crappy reason to do anything when you’re talking about things this serious. Exactly what good would it do the country to set that kind of precedent? Every four years you’d have the parties wasting their time scrabbling through the President-elect’s background for something to impeach him for.
Impeaching the President is a big honkin’ deal no matter which way you cut it, and the fact that the Congress wasted our money and their time on the Clinton impeachment proceedings does not justify doing so again just for revenge.
I suspect you’re right about agreeing to disagree. I do have one question though (really):
You don’t think that this precedent has already been set? Granted Whitewater wasn’t about revenge for a prior impeachment, but revenge for winning. Personally, I think Whitewater represented the final corruption of the two-party system and neither party retains the moral high ground supposedly necessary to lead this country.