A Coming Battle Over Bush's Executive Privilege

[Mac6yver]

Big deal. Clinton fired 93 fed attorneys when he came into office. If anything it shows Bush willingness to work with the oppisition party. It is political and it is the right of the President to do so. If people want this law changed than draft a bill.

I have posted this before, but it is relevant to this thread:

Clinton fired them when he entered office. Regan fired all of them when he entered office. Bush Sr. fired all of them when he took office. Bush Jr. did as well. It is common practice for Presidents to do this when they enter office. What is different here is that Bush is doing so in the middle of a term. This looks fishy. It looks like they are trying to prevent things from being investigated.

 

[2shelbys]

Well, start with Northern Ireland. A great deal of credit must to go to Clinton and Blair for making such progress there. (Hundreds of sources will show that). And the unsung heros George Mitchell (former senator), Canadian general De Chastelain and many others. Despite (or because of ) the Troubles, no president ever went there, not even Kennedy, none until Clinton. Pope JP2 didn’t even go there, although he was very close. Clinton did three trips during his presidency. When an American president flies in, it definitely shows some interest. It was his constant interest, that made the 1998 good friday agreement happen. It would not have happened otherwise. He also visited again after his presidency when they built the Clinton peace center.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/1346866.stm

Of course many people played many roles and they’re still hashing out details, but the changes are real and have lasted years. Now, NI was rated a top tourist spot for 2006-2007 and Belfast one of the top 10 cities to visit. So things have changed greatly.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6037525.stm

The US’s vital role in the process dropped like a stone when W took over. (although he finally made a visit)

As for the legacies, here’s a page where a bunch of “experts” at the Brooking’s Institute are going over that, and judging by the date, it was literally his last day as president and inauguration day for W. Jan 9, 2001: (obviously opinion not fact)

brookings.edu/comm/transcripts/20010109a.htm
It’s not all good, but I would put it side by side with whatever gets said on the first Tuesday of 2009.

You do have some good info on Ireland there but the Yugoslavia/Kosovo issue was a complete lie. After the “war” no one was able to find any evidence of “ethnic cleansing” at all. Here are a few links but there are MANY:
globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEI20050702&articleId=625

emperors-clothes.com/articles/chuss/nato.htm

nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/ethnic.htm

Some have argued that Yugoslavia was a threat because they were at the time the most resistant country in Europe to the EU and all of the other “One World Government” goals. I have not examined the situation so I do not know. All I know is that I read a TON of reports that stated that the whole reason for the war was fabricated and I know someone with family there who never saw any “ethnic cleansing”.

A far as the Israel/Palestine situation goes, none of the plans during Clinton’s era had any chance of working. It was all for show and this was not all his fault but it was nothing to give him credit for either.

 

[2shelbys]

I have posted this before, but it is relevant to this thread:

Clinton fired them when he entered office. Regan fired all of them when he entered office. Bush Sr. fired all of them when he took office. Bush Jr. did as well. It is common practice for Presidents to do this when they enter office. What is different here is that Bush is doing so in the middle of a term. This looks fishy. It looks like they are trying to prevent things from being investigated.

Not in the least and I haven’t heard that said. I have heard the Dems say that it was to give positions to friends of the administration (exactly what was done by previous Presidents, just on a smaller scale), not to head of any investigations. That is a silly assertion since it is the Dems in Congress who are going to do all the investigating and firing any number of attorneys will not stop it.

 

[jman507]

I suppose once everything finally comes to a conclusion, it comes closer and closer to it being a moot point for the Bush administration.

While Bush may be a lame duck, he can play in the mud pit with the Congressional majority party and won’t have to look pretty and presentable for the next election. I’m sure most voters tend to want to think the government is doing something, and not rehashing old business.

Yes, my post has nothing to do with substance, strictly style.

 

[mary_bobo]

I have posted this before, but it is relevant to this thread:

Clinton fired them when he entered office. Regan fired all of them when he entered office. Bush Sr. fired all of them when he took office. Bush Jr. did as well. It is common practice for Presidents to do this when they enter office. What is different here is that Bush is doing so in the middle of a term. This looks fishy. It looks like they are trying to prevent things from being investigated.

It looks fishy if that is what they are into. Meanwhile, Nobody is doing any investigating about Sandy Berger who stole classified documents out of the archives and destroyed them. They just happened to contain information about the actions of the Clinton administration prior to 9/11. He received a small fine (large to some of us, but a drop in the bucket to a wealthy political operative). I think this is fishy. And nobody seems to care.

 

[Mac6yver]

It looks fishy if that is what they are into. Meanwhile, Nobody is doing any investigating about Sandy Berger who stole classified documents out of the archives and destroyed them. They just happened to contain information about the actions of the Clinton administration prior to 9/11. He received a small fine (large to some of us, but a drop in the bucket to a wealthy political operative). I think this is fishy. And nobody seems to care.

you are right, it should be investigated further.

Here is the real funny thing about this whole Gonzales thing… What they did was not illegal, it just looks very shady, but it is not illegal. So why won’t the Bush Administration just tell the truth? Why do they insist on all of this “Cloak & Dagger”? Why do they wish to testify without any witness, transcript, and not under oath?