Comments Posted By badger
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 13 Comments
DEMS NEW INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY: MANUFACTURING SCANDAL
trrll:
"As is so often the case, it is not the action, but the coverup that is the real scandal. "
Really? The fact that our taxpayer-supported USAs are now being used as political hitmen against the President's political enemies isn't a "real" scandal? The fact that USAs who investigate the President's political allies were punished with dismissal isn't a "real" scandal? The fact that the Justice Department plotted to use provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act to appoint politically-controversial hacks to important public office isn't a "real" scandal?
The cover-up may be the only thing that's illegal (assuming that a case for obstruction of justice won't stick) but it's not the only scandal.
Comment Posted By badger On 15.03.2007 @ 10:30
test
Comment Posted By badger On 14.03.2007 @ 18:42
"I’m frankly shocked (not)..."
Clarice: I'm captivated by your amazing re-enaction of humor circa 1989. Please mention someone you find sexy and exclaim "Schwing!" Or signify that you've come up with a clever idea by saying "Oh Reeealy" in a nasaly voice while stretching out your suspenders. Or tell us about things that "Homie don't play". It'll be the 90s never even began!
Comment Posted By badger On 14.03.2007 @ 18:40
"So get off your fake moral high horses and stop pretending that you are shocked, simply shocked that politics is played with US Attorneys’ offices. If we had heard similar outrage about political interference in federal cases in the decade preceding Bush, you would be on much firmer ground to criticize what is happening now. As it is, all I see are a bunch of hypocrites taking political advantage of the stupidity and incompetence of the White House and Gonzalez."
I was 10 years old in 1993. So because I wasn't complaining about the supposed failures of the Clinton administration on the then-non-existant blogosphere, I can't point out that the USA system is currently being used for unethical purposes?
"As for specific issues like the firing of Carol Lam supposedly because her investigation was getting to close to Republican Jerry Lewis, I would simply point out that Clinton’s firing of the prosecutor investigating Rostenkowski did not prevent that crooked Congressman from getting convicted and sentenced to jail by the fired prosecutor’s successor."
The reason the Clinton USA who convicted Rostenkowski felt safe doing so was because he knew his predecessor was removed as a routine matter and not because of his interest in the case. Carol Lam's successor will know that USA Lam was probably removed for her investigations of Republican Congressmen and will have a strong motivation to lay off. This is exactly what happened to the USA of Guam in 2002 when he began investigating Jack Abramoff's interactions with the Superior Court there. He was removed, his predecessor got the message, and the case was dropped.
Comment Posted By badger On 14.03.2007 @ 11:05
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/13/abramoff-purge-attorney/
"And, of course, even though we are supposed to have forgotten the matter, Bill Clinton fired every single US Attorney in March of 1993. As the New York Times explained at the time, it was done largely to get rid of a particularly troublesome prosecutor who was going after Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski"
Of course, Bill Clinton replaced that USA with another USA more than willing to send Rostenkowski to prison. This would indicate that the removal was made for the same reason as the other 92 Bush-appointed USAs.
"It might feel good to wail and weep over interference by politicians in the offices of US attorneys but I challenge anyone to say that this is not a custom practiced by Republicans and Democrats – Congress and White House – from the beginning."
Shouldn't the burden be on Bush defenders to find examples of other USAs being fired for failing to support partisan investigations of the opposing party or for prosecuting political allies? Do Bush critics really have to track down the departures of the 500 or so USAs in the last half Century before they can say that Bush should not be using USAs to win elections? And even if it was a common practice (and it wasn't) is that any reason to defend it now? Will you and all the other right-wing bloggers keep your flippant attitude when a future-president Obama or Edwards starts launching partisan investigations of GOP congressmen immediately prior to the 2010 midterm elections?
Comment Posted By badger On 14.03.2007 @ 10:46
ANTI-WAR PROTEST: WHERE IS EVERYONE?
This link goes to a story about a guy at the protest march who actually allowed himself to be submitted to waterboarding torture, in order to demonstrate the immorality of its practice by the US government.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070127/ap_on_re_us/iraq_protest;_ylt=AnQjliv8XaWVCAQE.cih3JSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
Comment Posted By badger On 29.01.2007 @ 17:28
Rick,
Again, your argument only makes sense if you believe pragmatism to be morally inconsistent or "cowardly" as you call it. An anti-war protester may believe that Bush is the next Hitler and that two more years of his presidency could endanger the world and the country. That protester could punch a cop or chain themself to the doors of the Russell Office Building, but that would likely accomplish little (even if it's 10,000 protesters doing similar things) since Bush and Cheney don't care how many people they have to arrest and it would rapidly alienate moderates and make the war last longer or even help another pro-war Republican get elected in 2008.
Alternatively, through semi-passive protest, a protester may feel that, by creating as large a political coalition as possible (and endangering as many Republican House and Senate seats as possible) a friendly congress could use the power of the purse or even impeachment to end the danger of "Chimpy McBush-Hitler" or whatever. This is obviously the more pragmatic approach to the situation, regardless of how dire one believes the situation to be. I believe your attempts to delegitimate such pragmatism as "cowardly" only shows your fear of its (admittedly relative) effectiveness.
The 60's are over, Rick.
Comment Posted By badger On 29.01.2007 @ 09:10
Rick,
You contrasted yesterday's protests with the May Day protests, which were violent, which at least implies that you believe that even violent protest would be preferable to marching or other non-violent protest.
But more to the point, you set a ridiculous standard for anti-war protesters to meet. Apparently people aren't allowed to advocate a policy position unless they're willing to spend a night in a Montgomery jail cell or firebomb a ROTC center. At least not without being a "coward". You just don't want them to say anything.
Comment Posted By Badger On 28.01.2007 @ 23:12
Rick,
What bull*($#. If there truly were violent protests undertaken by the anti-war movement, you would be first to condemn the anti-war position as a whole and use the violent protests as evidence of the psychologically unhinged nature of all those who oppose the continuation.
At risk of putting further words in your mouth, you might also go on to mock the anti-war movement for the counter-productiveness of their violent actions and lack of faith in democracy, as these actions would surely alienate more moderate americans who might otherwise be willing to support anti-war policies.
Perhaps there are no longer violent protests because there is no longer the threat of a draft. But maybe the anti-war movement realised that violent protest is damaging politically and that perhaps the Vietnam War would have ended sooner if they HADN'T routinely thrown bags of urine at police officers. Perhaps non-violent protest, like the protest practiced by MLK and Gandhi before him is actually an intelligent and effective way for advocating social and political change.
Comment Posted By Badger On 28.01.2007 @ 13:12
SUPPORT THE TROOPS: OPPOSE THE BIDEN RESOLUTION
Rick:
What do you mean by "Breathing Room" exactly? Bush has made clear that he's going to do this regardless of how popular it is as long as the armed forces still take orders from him and Democrats wuss out on cutting funding. I think that the SOTU had little effect on either, so why do you believe that the SOTU and it's supposed effect on public opinion makes Bush any more or less likely to pursue escalation?
Comment Posted By badger On 26.01.2007 @ 12:02
