What the hell is it with the fucking Democrats in Congress!? :mad: What do the Bushkies have to do to merit an impeachment? Sacrifice a human virgin in the goddamn Capitol Rotunda? Sending out Larry, Moe, and Curly to burglarize a campaign headquarters is nothing compared to sending two highly placed goons to strongarm a sick man into compliance with treason. Even if there’s no chance for impeachment, at least bring it up. For the lot of them. Do Cheney at the same time. Damn. Just plain damn.
Pretty bold words from Mr. Snow, who so recently had to take a leave of absence to receive cancer treatments. What, so his mouth didn’t work when he was getting chemotherapy?
I’m still a little confused by this whole thing. Did the Department of Justice even have to sign off on this thing? I’m thinking no (please please correct me if I’m wrong here.) If no, why bother strongarming sick Ashcroft? It doesn’t make sense. I thought the DoJ ended up agreeing to a very similar plan anyway shortly thereafter.
Maybe because people are only critical of Democrats and their behavior, holding them responsible for the behavior of all of Congress and apparently the government? Because people absolve Republicans of all responsibility due to the fact that they are Republicans?
Who knows?
Fucking pussies. We can’t try to impeach him, people might not like us! Waaaaah!
Gotta have fall guys available for when it all blows up. If DoJ signs off on it, they take the heat. Now, it all lands on Bush and the rest of the circus.
Ruken:
In short, the story goes like this: Ashcroft was signing off on it once every 45 days, in part at least as a result of the advice and legal council of Woo. Woo quit and was replaced by Comey, who decided to institute a full review of the matter (after successfully demanding to be privy to the whole program).
Once he had access to the program in all its details, he and his team came to the conclusion that it was actually illegal. He shared this conclusion with Ashcroft, who concurred. Together they decided not to sign off it at the next 45-day cut-off in March. Then Ashcroft took ill and named Comey as his stand in during his absence. The cut-off date was approaching and Comey refused to sign, so the White House sent Gonzales and Card to Ashcroft, who was still in intensive care.
It might be worth noting as well that Woo was the author of the legal briefs employed by the White House in defense of its “Coercive Interrogation” techniques. He argued that interrogation couldn’t really be considered torture unless it resulted in bodily organ failure, and constructed most of the legal arguments used by the administration as their excuse to ignore the “quaint” Geneva Conventions.
Oh, by the way: yes, there was a provision in the program that required its re-approval by the DOJ once every 45 days.
Mr. Svin! You’ve been missed.
No shit. Ain’t that the truth? Utterly frightening.
Hiya, Hentor!
I’ve missed y’all too…although truth to tell, I’ve been lurking for the last few months. So I’ve been keeping my eye on you, even if you haven’t seen much of me!
Ashcroft had not been made fully aware of the extent to which the program was being used and had reservations about the legality. A JD review concluded that the program was illegal and that’s when Comey refused to recertify it without changes.
Comey WAS the acting AG. He wasn’t usurping anything.
They went to Ashcroft (when they knew he was sick and incapacitated) to try to do an end around Comey. They initially intended to sneak in there under of cover of darkness without witnesses. Comey literally had to race them there and warn Ashcroft what was happening.
They knew that the JD had found the program illegal and they knew the acting AG wouldn’t sign off on it. That should have been the end of it. They had no business trying to bully a signature out of Ashcroft.
No, they went ahead with the program anyway WITHOUT JD authorization and only made changes after a threat of mass resignations from the JD (all from Republicans, by the way. These guys were hardly bleeding heart liberals).
Comey was the proper authority. And how do you explain the WH continuing the program WITHOUT JD authorization? Under whose authority do they do that?
Hilarious. Bush is the one who sent his goons to Ashcroft in the first place. Bush is the one who went ahead with the illegal wiretaps without DoJ authorization and Bush only made changes to avoid an insurrection from his own Justice Department.
And people said Reagan was the Teflon President. Bush is slicker than a Sunday green at Augusta.
I’ve been against impeachment, not because I think he doesn’t deserve it, but because I think the process is so political that it would only become a months long Elephants vs. Donkeys trainwreck and that Bush’s actual misdeeds would be drowned out by the political din. I’ve also been telling myself he’s the Terri Schiavo of lame ducks anyway so we might as well just wait out his term.
Now…I’m starting to think that impeachment is becoming an ethical and legal obligation and to hell with the politics. Watergate was nothing compared to this story alone and Bush has scores of stories like this.
I think some patriotic hero is going to have to volunteer to blow him so he can finally be removed from office.
In fairness to Bush, you can’t expect something to stick if it isn’t thrown. The mainstream media has pretty much ignored the whole story.
Oh I agree that the Democrats continue to require frequent boosters of spine, although the influsion they got in 2006 seems to have helped a great deal.
I’m just curious why you call them out in particular? Don’t you see how even your own framing of the problem illustrates the circumstances that continue to make them struggle to find courage?
Don’t you get it? The guiding principle of these folks is “Anything I do is all right because I know my own motives are pure. Anything YOU do is suspect if it opposes my whishes.”
Sailboat
It may be my ignorance of the system, but as I understand it, the majority party sets all things into motion. I thought Congressional proceedings were more or less pre-arranged, with few if any surprises in committee meetings. If that’s not the case, then I’ll blame Congress as a whole — Democrats for having no balls, and Republicans for having no conscience.
Leaving aside questions of the Democratic party’s purported pusillanimity, I want to get back to the bizarre purpose for which we are gathered in this thread: praise of John Ashcroft.
This is from the testimony of Comey, not Ashcroft himself. But in considering its accurracy, it is worth pointing out that the Washington Post describes Comey thusly:
To me, not an Ashcroft fan in any previous sense, this was not just the right thing to do, but also spoken in words that have a certain ring of antique dignity. “There is the attorney general.” I can imagine a Founding Father saying something similar.
Eh, perhaps my surprise at the source is coloring my response. Still, I have to acknowledge Ashcroft for standing up when he couldn’t, well, stand up. And for using memorably simple phrasing. 
Sailboat
Impeachment wouldn’t help anybody. To make any sense, it would have to be a dual Bush/Cheney impeachment, which would leave Pelosi in charge. (Is that right?) It would be a long bloody partisan battle, leading to another long bloody partisan battle in the Senate. By the time it was over it would be 2008, with only a few months left in the presidential term. It would tear the country apart at a time of multiple crises. If successful, nothing would be gained that wouldn’t have been gained by riding out the current administration. A better strategy is for the Democrats to ride herd on Bush with vigorous oversight and investigation.