A simple Question

So, first you argue that the actions Clinton would have taken after 9/11 are "utterly irrelevant" and then you go on to argue that he would not have done a thing, the Taliban would still be running things in Afghanistan, and furthermore if he were in power in '90, Iraq would own most of the Middle East.

Come on.

 

If you really believe this then you shouldn't try to lay the blame for 9/11, the economy or anything else that has gone wrong during the current Admin on the Clinton Admin.

 

Right. All the problems have their origin before Bush's term and all the problems after his term ends won't be his fault and all of the good stuff that happens after he loses in November will be due to the Bush Administration.

Is that where you're going, basso?







Replicant italic fun.

 

This brings up an interesting question...

If you're Kerry and you happen to win in November, what do you do about all the stuff that went on under Bush? Do you call for more investigations and go after 'em or do you ignore it and try to go on as best you can?

What if Kerry's Prez and the Dems get at least one of the houses and are out to make a point? If you're Kerry, would you support that or try to dampen it?

For the record, here's some of the investigations currently underway, all the more remarkable because dems control neither house and all these had to be instigated by other Republicans.

1. The Republican hacking of Democratic computer accounts and theft of thousands of Judiciary Committee documents.

2. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees are both investigating intelligence issues related to Iraq.

3. The Senate Intelligence Committee is investigating the administration's pre-war statements about Iraq's WMDs and ties to al Qaida.

4. WH personnel are being investigated by a Justice Department special prosecutor for the Plame deal.

5. HHS Inspector General is investigating about how the administration hid the true cost of the Medicare bill and whether they illegally influenced an actuary.

6. The General Accounting Office is investigating the fake Medicare "news reports."

7. The House Standards of Official Conduct Committee and the Justice Department are both (and seperately) investigating bribery allegations regarding the votes on the Medicare bill.

There's also the 9-11 commission. Would you advocate a second committee if there are major gaps in the final report of this one?

Then there's all the stuff that probably should be under investigation that isn't.

 

I definitely pursue the Plame deal, until the culprit is caught and punished. A felony was committed, the culprit had top security clearance and did this at a time when we had troops and intel officers in the field fighting the war on terror. It's criminal, and possibly endangers the lives of others directly, and may have harmed are battle against terror organizations, which puts all Americans at risk. Never let the ball drop on this one.

I pursue the taking of democratic files but with a little less vigor.

I check into the false news reports about the medicaid thing, but don't publicize this at all, and downplay it as much as possible. Let the Republicans think they've gotten away with something, and bring it out when it suits my purposes best to discredit future actions by the Republicans.

The rest of it, I don't go after. I just try and correct the mistakes, and not go after them in an effort to heal some of what's been happening the last ten years in politics. I may bring it up occasionally only to point out that 'we can all just let that float under the bridge, and move on from this point forward to make a better tomorrow,' and use that kind of political speak so that people don't forget what happened, but at the time aren't becoming further entrenched, and divided.

 

This Isn't America
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Last week an opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin said, "This isn't America; the government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to justify their attack."

So even in Israel, George Bush's America has become a byword for deception and abuse of power. And the administration's reaction to Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" provides more evidence of something rotten in the state of our government.

The truth is that among experts, what Mr. Clarke says about Mr. Bush's terrorism policy isn't controversial. The facts that terrorism was placed on the back burner before 9/11 and that Mr. Bush blamed Iraq despite the lack of evidence are confirmed by many sources — including "Bush at War," by Bob Woodward.

And new evidence keeps emerging for Mr. Clarke's main charge, that the Iraq obsession undermined the pursuit of Al Qaeda. From yesterday's USA Today: "In 2002, troops from the Fifth Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures."

That's why the administration responded to Mr. Clarke the way it responds to anyone who reveals inconvenient facts: with a campaign of character assassination.

Some journalists seem, finally, to have caught on. Last week an Associated Press news analysis noted that such personal attacks were "standard operating procedure" for this administration and cited "a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit Richard Foster," the Medicare actuary who revealed how the administration had deceived Congress about the cost of its prescription drug bill.

But other journalists apparently remain ready to be used. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer told his viewers that unnamed officials were saying that Mr. Clarke "wants to make a few bucks, and that [in] his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well."

This administration's reliance on smear tactics is unprecedented in modern U.S. politics — even compared with Nixon's. Even more disturbing is its readiness to abuse power — to use its control of the government to intimidate potential critics.

To be fair, Senator Bill Frist's suggestion that Mr. Clarke might be charged with perjury may have been his own idea. But his move reminded everyone of the White House's reaction to revelations by the former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill: an immediate investigation into whether he had revealed classified information. The alacrity with which this investigation was opened was, of course, in sharp contrast with the administration's evident lack of interest in finding out who leaked the identity of the C.I.A. operative Valerie Plame to Bob Novak.

And there are many other cases of apparent abuse of power by the administration and its Congressional allies. A few examples: according to The Hill, Republican lawmakers threatened to cut off funds for the General Accounting Office unless it dropped its lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The Washington Post says Representative Michael Oxley told lobbyists that "a Congressional probe might ease if it replaced its Democratic lobbyist with a Republican." Tom DeLay used the Homeland Security Department to track down Democrats trying to prevent redistricting in Texas. And Medicare is spending millions of dollars on misleading ads for the new drug benefit — ads that look like news reports and also serve as commercials for the Bush campaign.

On the terrorism front, here's one story that deserves special mention. One of the few successful post-9/11 terror prosecutions — a case in Detroit — seems to be unraveling. The government withheld information from the defense, and witnesses unfavorable to the prosecution were deported (by accident, the government says). After the former lead prosecutor complained about the Justice Department's handling of the case, he suddenly found himself facing an internal investigation — and someone leaked the fact that he was under investigation to the press.

Where will it end? In his new book, "Worse Than Watergate," John Dean, of Watergate fame, says, "I've been watching all the elements fall into place for two possible political catastrophes, one that will take the air out of the Bush-Cheney balloon and the other, far more disquieting, that will take the air out of democracy."

 

I truly wish she would take your advice. Once again refusing to take any responsibility for any thing is going to go over really well. I hope the Bush Administration keeps it up.

 

Watch out what you wish for. It has come true. See the Ms. Rice thread. The Administration has caved. Rice will testify under oath.

 

So no, you don't think an Admin should be just judged on what they have accomplished or not accomplished while in office.

You've contradicted your earlier statement that you only judge an Administration by what they do or don't do while in office.

 

Sorry I miswrote.

You've contradicted your earlier statement that you only judge each president by what they accomplished while in office when very clearly you do not.

 

Only because you're trying to have it both ways.

To paraphrase your reasoning:

Republican presidents can only be judged on what good things they accomplished in office.

Democratic presidents can be judged on what they did in office but are also responsible for problems that occur within later Republican administrations.