Cold_Zero wrote:Lying under oath - what other things has he lied about? I would point out that I was not the one who brought up Bill Clinton.
vs.Outting a CIA Agent- Is George W. Bush accused of outting Valerie Plame? No and if GW outed a CIA Agent would he go to jail? Since he is the commander in chief of this country, I would think not.
fair enough I missed the line on the top of his post, but Bill is still largely irrelevant unless we want to use his conduct as a benchmark.
Bush isn't being accused of anythign because he either A) passes the buck (e.x. Scotter Libby) or B) refuses to talk about it. (e.x. Karl Rove). If nothign else, he should be impeached for his refusal to give out any information on what they are doing. He is in charge, and if executive privlege is used to cover it crimes, then its his butt on the line. As for being the commander in chief, well treason is treason, doesn't matter if you citizen l or the president.
The report is pretty damning...Quote »dered a candidate’s political or ideological affiliations when decidingwhether to approve details of career attorneys to positions in EOUSA,OLP, and the ODAG, or whether to extend existing details in theseoffices. In these examples, the candidates were qualified for the detailsand supported by the leaders of those offices because of theirqualifications and ability. However, Goodling’s review focused on theirpolitical or ideological affiliations and she often rejected candidates basedupon these affiliations, or her perception of these affiliations, some ofwhich were inaccurate, without regard to professional qualifications.Senior officials in these offices sometimes objected to Goodling’sdecisions, and argued with her about the quality of these candidates.Sometimes their appeals were successful, but more often they were not.Even candidates personally offered positions by the Deputy Attorney60General were required to be interviewed by and receive the approval ofGoodling before they could begin their details.Goodling’s decisions were particularly damaging to the Departmentbecause they resulted in high-quality candidates being rejected forimportant positions. For example, in one of the most troubling instancesan experienced terrorism prosecutor who had received the AttorneyGeneral’s Award for Exceptional Service was rejected by Goodling for adetail to EOUSA to work on counterterrorism issues because of his wife’spolitical affiliations. Instead, EOUSA had to select a much more juniorattorney who it believed was not qualified for the position. This use ofpolitical affiliation prevented an experienced career attorney fromassuming important counterterrorism responsibilities, and insteadresulted in the assignment of the duties to a less qualified candidate.[/quote]
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0807/final.pdf
This report was written by and for the Department of Justice. If we cannot trust the departtment of justice to fairly and appropriately implement its on policies, and be blind to political affiliation then we are truely lost. Your arguement that this is par for the course is misleading and unsupported by fact. While their are political appointees that work in DOJ, there are many many more non-politicdal civil servants that dedicate their lives to serving the people of this coutnry and providing us Justice. Saying that this always happens is not only a lie, it is insulting to the many people who spend their lives working there. The worst part is that if we had somebody with less moral fiber than Obama (I've said elsewhere I'm not a huge fan but I do find him trustworthy) this could easily swing the other way over the next 4 years and it would truely be a disaster for this coutnry.
we shoudl be voting the Republican's out because they were comlicit in this and many other crimes against this coutnry and its constitution. There has been no investigation of any of these things, nothign nada zip. The one special prosecutor was denied access to just about anything needed to so his job. You want a list? try this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2195892/