posted
In an effort to ascertain who was at secret meetings for the Administration's evolving energy policy, the GAO (General Accounting Office, a branch of the Congress) has filed papers to sue the White House. This lawsuit is to force the White House to release the information. The White House has hired a solicitor general and a respected lawyer to contest the lawsuit. The outcome is not known.
Years ago, another president, President Clinton, faced a similiar challenge from the GAO. In his case, the meetings were held to discuss a new health care policy. The GAO threatened legal action if this former administration didn't hand over requested information. Like this current administration, Pres. Clinton argued that the White House should be allowed to have secret meetings. However, unlike Pres. Bush's government, Pres. Clinton's administration agreed to the GAO's demand and handed over documents with the requested information.
posted
He is, actually, though it's for a 15 year term. In theory, the GAO is more like the Supreme Court than Congress.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
See George sit idly by, talking about "terrah" and causing the Yen to fall by "misspeaking" again.
[Don't] see Dick run.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Except that George didn't do anything.
Don't assume that George is like the angel you perceive him to be. What if he did do something? Will you still defend him then?
A Democrat is suspected of doing something illegal. You jump all over him. A Republican is being suspected of doing something illegal. You defend him. This is a double standard, and a bad one at that.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It's a deserved double-standard. Remember, humans find patterns. It's what we do. One obvious pattern is "democrat cantidates = mostly dishonest; GOP cantidates = substantially more honest". Of course, the reason for that is that I simply tend to trust people until I have some reason not to. I just happen to have a problem with most congressional Democrats: they defended Bill Clinton, even knowing that he'd had an extramarital affair and had committed perjury on the subject. If someone can claim that these things are not outright WRONG for ANY reason, then what qualms might they have about lying to you? Their credibility is gone.
Bush, OTOH, HAS told the truth about everything I've heard him say. I therefore tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, and BTW, we KNOW he didn't do anything wrong in those meetings. Enron asked Bush for help, thinking he'd interfere like Clinton did. He didn't. Simple as that.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
I'm also beginning to see a pattern here:
"Conservative Christians lack brains (or the capacity to use them)."
quote:Of course, the reason for that is that I simply tend to trust people until I have some reason not to.
Except Democrats. They're all eeeeeeeevil!
quote:I just happen to have a problem with most congressional Democrats: they defended Bill Clinton, even knowing that he'd had an extramarital affair and had committed perjury on the subject. If someone can claim that these things are not outright WRONG for ANY reason, then what qualms might they have about lying to you? Their credibility is gone.
The shock! The horror! An EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR!
Granted, it was wrong to LIE. But do not try to pretend lying isn't a fact of life in YOUR party as well *cough* Nixon *cough*.
quote:Bush, OTOH, HAS told the truth about everything I've heard him say. I therefore tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, he's told the truth about everything you heard him say? Well then, no reason to question his credibility! Because if Omega says someone told the truth, it MUST be so.
Take those glasses off, will you? Only being able to see black and white is a Bad Thing.
[ February 25, 2002, 07:10: Message edited by: Cartman ]
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, you also gotta question what they're lying about.
Clinton lied about a blowjob.
Nixon lied about trying to overthrow the whole election process.
Of course, we all know lying about the blowjob was worse.
Interestingly enough, I read a report recently that pretty much said that from the legal language used in cases like these, that Clinton didn't lie (and if he did, burden-of-proof being what it is, the prosecution did a very poor job of proving it), and the only reason he admitted to lying was to get out from under the scandal. Anyways, to provide reading material for interested parties:
quote:defended Bill Clinton, even knowing that he'd had an extramarital affair and had committed perjury on the subject.
Omega, did it ever occur to you that they might have thought Impeachement wasn't an appropriate punishment? Why not censure Clinton, or try him after leaving office? So many options! If the Republican leadership had decided to try another avenue, you might've winded up with a victory while at the same time avoiding a scandal which painted both parties in pretty bad light.
For someone who professes to believe in the Founder's Intent, clearly you can see that there's a big difference between lying about, say, trying to thwart the other partys' election campaigns and getting a blowjob. One is clearly harmful to the national interest (which is what Impeachement is all about: removing that threat). Impeachment is not supposed to be a personal punishment for wrongdoing.
You want to argue Clinton should be punished? Fine. Please explain why impeachment, and not censure, trial after office, or *GASP!* even a prosecutorial decision not to press the case.
posted
Or, alternatively, don't. Instead please explain to me the desire to go over this over and over again, without hope of any sort of resolution. Seriouosly, I'd like to know. Please, for the love of God, make me understand!
posted
Actually, I don't think anyone has discussed on Flare (at least, since I've been here) why Impeachment and not another alternative was the only option. I'd like to see Omega tackle this one, since "he needed to be punished" would've been fulfilled under Censure or another option. Anyhoo.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
