No wonder Americans are confused by the selective swearing-in of witnesses on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post noted that Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said last April, “During my stewardship here, I’m going to put everybody under oath when we have testimony, as we do on confirmation hearings.”
Then Monday, Specter said of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, “It is my judgment that it is unnecessary to swear the witness.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
51 Comments
Of course, why expect the A.G. of the United States to stick to only the truth? The truth can be such a tarbaby, stopping what you want to do. Why if everyone stuck to the truth nothing would ever get done in Washington or anywhere else in this country. “Mr. A.G. is this spying legal?” “(wink) Of course it is sir!”"Mr. A.G. are you spying only on those that seem to have ties to terrorists?” “” (thumbs up) Yes sir only those we think should be spied on are being spied on!”"
“So Mr. A.G., why if it is legal and only those that have a tie to terrorism are being spied on. Do you need to go outside the law to spy on them?”
” Bush security…Ahh I mean national security sir!”
Don’t you suppose they just dont’ want the American public to know the truth?
Gonzales kept mentioning it wasn’t part of ‘this’ program.
What are the other programs?
You can be sure that if the White House was Democratic and the Congress and the Senate were Republican Gonzales would have been sworn in. But since the Republicans control everything, then there is no checks and balances.
Dear Rhonda,
OK, now this is going to suprise everyone, but there was no need to swear the AG in. He was there voluntarily as a courtesy to the Senate.
Now I know the liberals there tried to treat him like a lying criminal but the truth is he didn’t have to be there and there was no reason for him to lie or for there to be any implication that he would.
The liberals on that senate committe knw full well that the president has the authority to conduct electronic survilence on terrorists without a warrent. They ore the ones that should be sworn in!Its politics children. The democrats with no plan for national secureity have decided to become the defense attorneys for the terrorists.
Hank
Hank,
Just because you say something doesn’t mean that it’s true. I realize that your Wingnut reptile brain just thinks that if you repeat things often and assertively, that liberals will just dry up and blow away.
Does the President have the authority to break the law? No. End of story. And it’s worth noting that Constitutional scholars reject the White House’s claims to executive power, while most members of Congress reject the WH’s dishonest assertion that the Resolution to authorize force covered domestic wiretapping.
So, what the President is doing is a) unconstiutional, and b) breaks existing law.
Considering how Gonzales squirmed while obviously lying his ass off, Arlen Specter demonstrated nicely how a United States Senator can make himself into a grovelling lapdog for Executive power. In doing so, he comes close to rivalling Pat Roberts’ similar efforts.
As for your closing fallacy, where you’re either ‘with us or against us,’ that’s called a ‘bifurcation’ in Logic. I’m against you Hank, but I’m not for them. Is it intellect you lack, Hank, or intellectual honesty? I’d like to think it’s the first, because you seem like not a bad guy. But considering that Wingnuts have an…um, FLEXIBLE approach to truth and argumentation, I have to can’t rule out that it may be the latter.
Heh, another spanking for poor Hank.
I’d comment further, but I’ve got to run off to another of my “socialist” meetings where we plot the downfall of America.
Cheerio . . .
Congratulations CF!
You’ve managed to string a series of words together without profanity!
Doesn’t change the facts though, president has the constitutional authority in the time of war. And we are at war.
“Constitutional scholars” are on both sides of this issue. They seem to follow party lines. The precedent in the courts, however, ore on the presidents side.
Hank
It is a little scary that people like Hank think that the oply way to defeat terrorists is through “George Orwell 1984″ type spying of citizens and treating our constitution like it is nothing more than a “GD” piece of paper.America is under attack all right, but not just by terrorists. The greatest threat is from within. Within our own government.And people like Hank, who rubber-stamp everything der fuhrer Bush and his gestapo lieutenents force on us.
Congratulations on your support of a police state, Hank. Kind of negates what you stood for all those years in the service of our country, doesn’t it? I find it unnerving when a veteran turns his back on the liberty he supposedly fought for. I know, we’re just loosing a “little bit” of liberty this time, but what, or who is next?Hank, I choose not to cower before the threat of terror. When we stand by and let an administration steal away our liberties, we hand over victory to terrorists. They don’t win it on the battlefield, we’re so fearful that we just hand it over. They’ve accomplished what they set out to do. They’ve changed what made us a great nation, and they’ve been assisted by our President and his minions.Hank, I’m sorry you live in such a state of fear. For myself, I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Respectfully,Anonymous
There is no solution in sight for this one. When there is another terrorist attack, the people screaming the loudest right now about illegal searches will be screaming even louder that the government didn’t do enough.
I am not endorsing or condoning illegal tactics, but I do recognize the enemy doesn’t play by any nice set of rules. I can imagine Al Queda laughing their socks off at how we protect their “rights” as they plot to kill as many of us as they can.
MY MOUTHPIECES DON’T NEED NO STINKIN OATH! WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN DEFINE TRUTH IN OUR BRAVE NEW WORLD! JUST ASK THE PEOPLE IN THE MISTRY OF TRUTH, THEY WILL EXPLAIN IT ALL TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The coconut in chief has spoken; that is all!!
Viva la Raza Blanco!!
Ray–I don’t give a damn what Al Qaeda thinks or what they “laugh at.”
Why do you?
I think the biggest thing we could do to stop the next attack is to capture Bin Laden.
How’s that going?
Lib..
I was working with some people on the 69th Floor of Tower II in August, 2001. About 3 weeks before they were killed. As such, I DO care about what Al Queda thinks.. especially when it involves killing more people. My comment about laughter was meant metaphorically..obviously a little too abstract for some people.
Do you honestly think that capturing/killing Ben Laden will stop the terrorists? Can you really be that naieve? If capturing one person is your idea of a total end to terrorism, I am afraid we have found yet another thing to disagree on.
No, obviously catching Bin Laden isn’t going to stop all terrorism from that particular branch of terrorists . . . but it’d be a helluva good start, wouldn’t it?
Instead, we’ve got Team Bush listening in to Grandma down at the Quaker Peace Center and digging into Democratic e-mails (both of those examples are documented real examples, not hypothetical).
It would fit the pattern of fear-mongering (remember the orange alerts right before the election?) the Bush Team engages in if THEY DELIBERATLY CHOSE NOT TO CAPTURE BIN LADEN BEFORE INVADING IRAQ, so as to make Iraq appear more threatening.
You say it can’t be true–consider the WMD debacle, the non-existent Saddam-Bin Laden “link,” and Iraq’s “reconstituted nuclear threat” that NO ONE believed except for the Bush administration.
If they were willing to play fast and loose with the facts, and they obviously were willing, then what else did they do or NOT DO (capture Bin Laden) to create a climate of fear?
And BTW, I care about the people who were killed in the Twin Towers.
I care about their families too.
You might ask yourself why they have started organizations to try to get the Bush administration to tell the truth of what happened that day.
BUT, Team Bush is no more eager to really explain things then than they were about the secret energy meetings with Cheney or the Katrina records.
It fits the pattern . . .
HEY EVERYBODY! I FOUND OUT JOHN MALKOVICH AND TRUTHREGARDLESS IS REALLY IAN HIMSELF! HAHAHAHA!!
Ian!!!How ironic that you make the same mistake the Nazis did in underestimating those they deemed inferior!! hahahaha!!! Oh Ian, what would Adolf think of you now? I don’t think you will be admitted into Valhalla! Losing to an inferior such as me, I bet your racist ancestors are rolling in their graves! I bet they don’t want to have anything to do with you anymore! hahahaha!! Take this defeat as a lesson Ian, that the “Aryan” race is NO MATCH for the Human race! hahahaha!!!
Viva la Revoluccion!!!! YEEEEHAAWW!
CruX, would you like to explain that? Interesting supposition. How did you come by it? Enquiring minds want to know.
You must forgive “Hank” Rush was on vacation the last several days. So Hank has not been told what to think. He is right “winging” it. He has to go back to form without direction. Bush is right Bush is always right.
But why are we surprised that Gonzales was not sworn in? Recently, oil executives called to the Senate carpet simply inlarge part just didn’t show up. Those that did were not sworn in either.
Now Hank I hold you in very low regard. But I see you for what you are, a puppet. Now Hank? I can’t talk to Rush. So I want to ask you;
Should we just make bush king? That seems to be where we are headed.
Ray,The people charged with sorting this information complain they can’t follow up important leads gathered legally because they are spending so much time sifting the tons of information obtained illegally.
If they are overwhelmed with information gathered illegally that wont’ hold up in courts, how will they find the needle in the haystack?
It would appear that it would be more likely in the gluttony of gathering that detail would be overlooked.
How will an illegal program make anyone safer?
Gentle people,
Getting back on topic, you will soon find that this will go away. You see no one cares who gets sworn in and who doesn’t. This is just another in a long list of futile, childish arguments that they put forth because they have no plan. The liberals have no plan. They have no plan to prevent another attack on the US. They have no plan on how to fight terrorism. They have no energy plan. They have no economic plan.
They merely go from one made up crisis to another made up crisis trying to make the president look bad. This is a tactic that will eventually be the downfall of the Democratic Party. They will lose seats in November in the House and in the Senate. Even the dullest of the electorate are starting to become frustrated with their pettiness.
When someone on this BLOG uses childish name-calling and invective to make their point you soon find out that they really don’t have a point or the intellect to make it in a civil way. Now this tactic may be successful in driving decent people from posting on this BLOG, but it is not a tactic for successfully arguing a point and changing hearts and minds over to your way of thinking.
As soon as someone responds to one of my posts with childish name-calling and profanity I have won the argument! That is too bad. There are a few here that are smart enough that they could actually argue a point in a way that could contribute to the discussion. Their hate of the president and their childish comments make their posts little more than ugly graffiti that needs to be painted over and forgotten.
Hank
Hank wrote:”They will lose seats in November in the House and in the Senate.”
I bet you $50 dollars (to be paid to a charity of your choice if I lose or a charity of my choice if you lose) that between the House and the Senate, Democrats will gain at least one net seat in November.
Joe W already took my bet that conditions in Iraq will not be any better a year from now than they are now.
That was back in Oct.
Not looking good for Joe . . .
Hank, the local legal expert, brilliantly noted “but there was no need to swear the AG in. He was there voluntarily as a courtesy to the Senate”
Hank, Michael Brown was sworn in on Friday, but he was also there voluntarily. Why the discrepancy? Under your THEORY, Brown shouldnt have been sworn in either.
Wanna take another try Einstein?
Hank says
“As soon as someone responds to one of my posts with childish name-calling and profanity I have won the argument!”
Guess that means the entire right-wing media, from Hannity to Rush to Coulter to Matthews has never won an argument. Where would right-wing media, which is now mainstream media, be without such personal attacks?
And as long as we’re all venting our spleens, Hank, I find your smug condescension from a position of exalted ignorance quite offensive, and your robotic parroting of right-wing talkings points (”the Democrats have no___”) to discredit your arguments every bit as much as you think my use of profanity does so.
Intellectual honesty and original arguments–from Hank? That would be like expecting them from Nathan.
Hank further enlightens us by saying “They seem to follow party lines. The precedent in the courts, however, ore on the presidents side.” (sic)
Wanna back that up with something other than your opinion? How about quoting those legal journals you peruse and know so well? Or did god just reveal this to you in a vision?
Notice no name calling or profanity here. Wonder what excuse the jesus brigade will make to justify not providing facts?
“Hank, I’m sorry you live in such a state of fear. For myself, I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.”
Bravo Anonymous. I am so tired of these bedwetting conservative christians running to their government daddy when they are scared…and they are scared all the time. Wassa matter, jesus wont protect you?
And as for the d’s dropping seats in November, the polls would really have to change between now and then. Not one national poll has the public trusting r’s more than d’s and in fact, just the opposite is true.
Do you ever actually do any research Hank, or are you just god’s messanger here? Remember, Mary Chapin Carpenter got it right when she said, “the stars might lie but the numbers never do”. With your grasp of facts and numbers Hank, I suspect you were educated in Kansas.
Oh yeah, I guess this post means you win??? LOLOLOLOLOL
Well ProudLib,
That’s a pretty brave bet! Seems like you have a lot of confidence in the Democrats ability to win! So let me understand the terms of the wager:
If the Republicans lose two seats in the Senate, but gain two in the House, I win? Currently there are 231 Republicans in the House and 55 in the Senate for a total of 286. For you to win and me to lose, this number must be reduced to 285. Agreed?
Now, for the charity. Before I agree to a charity of your choice, I must first know what it will be. I won’t contribute to a charity that is fundementally against my beliefs.
The charity that I choose is:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/rush_24_7_adopt_a_soldier.guest.html
It is a very good charity that supports our troops. It costs $49.95. The extra nickel can go to a charity of yor choice! No restrictions on my part!
If you agree to my charity and I agree to your charity, let the wagering begin!
Hank
Farm Gal,Might I suggest Planned Parenthood for Hank to donate to when he loses?
Jed,
I was going to suggest Ian’s favority charity, NAMBLA.
LOL jed, I am not the one betting. I farm, remember? I have no need to gamble :)
If I were proud lib though, I sure wouldnt contribute to Hank’s charity. That is the $49.95 that supports our troops by giving them a subscription to Rush’s bullshit.That is right. The money goes to Rushco, and supports our troops by making rush available 24/7.
The money DOES NOT buy the body armor so lacking, it DOES NOT recruit more yellow elephants to serve and increase troop numbers, it DOES NOT pay for artificial limbs and rehab costs, it DOES NOT pay for the propaganda shills to make the war go our way, and it damn sure DOES NOT go to supporting the troops financially since preznit bush is so intent on cutting their benefits.
So Hank, why do you want the troops to have a subscription to Rush’s crap? Cant Rush afford to give a password to all the troops for free? Is his pharmacist charging more for oxy these days? Or is he just paying more for legal fees to keep his ex-wives quiet?
Yeah,give the troops a subscription to Rush. He is the illegal prescription king, the pill junky, and the lying liar that I want OUR TROOPS to emulate.
Hey, with all of Rush’s divorces, how about having him shill for the church on the virtues of straight christian marriage? Can you provide a link to his words of wisdom on that subject?
Inquiring minds just want to know…
CF:”Intellectual honesty and original arguments–from Hank? That would be like expecting them from Nathan.”
Maybe someone can help me, is there a point to arguing with either of these two individuals? If there is one, I am failing to see it.
Further, I think it is insulting to our lizard friends to call their brains’ “reptilian”.
LOL DD, I hear the GEICO gekko is gonna sue for defamation. He hates being compared to someone of lesser intellectual ability.
DD, I think the same thing myself about arguing with these guys. There is no conversation with hank/nathan/etc. It is just tail chasing, and we do try to ignore them, as ubiquitous as they are.
However, official shunning is not condoned here, and sometimes, well, they are just so damned outrageously stupid that you cant let their lies go unchallenged.
I dont know what the answer is. Shunning encourages them, using facts against opinion encourages them, hell, everything is interpreted as encouragement and acknowledgement of their intellectual stature. Not to mention their annointment as prophets.
If you know how to work around them, let the rest of us know.
Yes, Hank, those terms are basically correct. However, I hate Rush Limbaugh with every fiber of my being, so if I have to pay him if I lose, you have to pay whoever I choose.
And I chose the Wichita Center for Peace and Social Justice. I know people on the board there, and I will know if you paid or not.
Take it or leave it, big mouth.
Also, their are X number of Democrats in both the House and Senate. I don’t know what that number is right now because some members of Congress belong to third parties or are independent.
But I’ll find it out. And if the Dems gain one net seat more than they have now, I win.
THERE are . . . whassamatter with me?
Great, yet another Kansan in the Republican Party running interference for Bush.
Good post, FrmGrl. Rush Limbaugh makes a quarter of a BILLION dollars a year, and he won’t give his program to the troops.
Al Franken has been on USO tours to Iraq and Afghanistan about half a dozen times now, but Rush? and O’Reilly?
Uh . . . that would be a no go.
Of course there’s a big difference between Al and the right wing.
Al has talent.
Actually Rush has been to Afghanistan.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060123.asp#1
(In fact, Limbaugh hasn’t gone on a USO tour, but in late February 2005 he did go on a U.S. Agency for International Development trip to visit troops in Afghanistan.)
Just trying to keep the record straight.
Hmmm . . . okay, I stand corrected.
Dear ProudLib,
Your choice is OK with me. It seems like a pretty harmless, inconsequential bunch of good-hearted people. Do you have a second choice just in case they no longer exist as an organization come November?
Just to clarify our bet, there are a total of 286 republicans. Two Independents, but the one in the house is pretty safe and the one in the senate isn’t up for election. (I don’t think) They pretty much vote with the democrats and I consider them democrats. Any how, for me to lose, and for you to win the total number of reepublicans must be less than 286, agreed?
Hank
Wow Hank you are amazing!
Every single word of your long winded post upthread is DIRECTLY lifted Rush and Hannity. I can even tell who you FAVOR namely Hannity.
There is so much I would say…..
Some of the things democrats will do after 2006:
Universal WI FI access.Renew capital gains taxRepeal bush tax cuts to the super richVote to embrace Kyoto treaty.Reverse bush reversals of safety standards…..so no more coal miners die.Catch Bin ladenCatch the anthrax attackerPut Ken Lay in jailPut Rush Limbaugh in jailRenew the fairness doctrine.Raise the minimum wage
thats just a start
See deal is you can’t say folks have no agenda just because Rush and Hannity don’t like that agenda.
Hank? you are hopeless. Frankly I am ashamed that I must share America with you and so many like you.
But as ever to the thread. Well as usual for the bush clan of cronies……..Gonzales dodged the law. Hey that’s ok. Heck it is beginning to DEFINE them.
Thing is? When impeachment preceedings are brought…….and bless their hearts the bushies are making it SO EASY…..swearing in aint gonna be optional!
Dear JR,
Its a strange and delusional world you live in. You don’t share it with me.
Keep posting, you’re making me look good!
Hank
Poor deranged Hank refers to someone else as delusional? Hank, the only thing that would make you look good is a straight-jacket.
lol curly, with a pink triangle on it, or maybe a rainbow flag. Both look stunning on a straight jacket, no pun intended. I like X’s idea. Give ‘em all a membership in NAMBLA
Hank–
You say Democrats will lose seats in Congress in Nov; I say they will gain them.
Right now, there are 44 Dems in the Senate and 201 in the House. (There are also 2 independents and two vacancies, but one vacancy is Rep. and one is Dem. so they balance out.)
The bet is that after the Nov elections if Dems have more seats then than they do now (246 instead of 245), I win and you pay.
If the Dems have fewer seats or the same number (245 or less), you win and I pay.
Agreed?
Couldn’t have said it better,
Agreed.
Hank
Okay, we’re on, my friend.
And may what’s best for the country be the result in November!
:)
Hopefully, if I lose it will be because a liberal republican lost to a conserative dem!
It’ll be fun!
Hank