Amid scandals, Bush White House takes a risky path, placing loyalty over public duty.

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 7/17/2002 | Jonathan Turley

[Howlin]

Hyprocrisy?

You want hyprocrisy?

Here it is:

[Howlin]

When the man who dictates what goes on at Justice predicts that the investigation will turn up nothing, it's pretty much an indication that Cheney is above the law

That, of course, is your opinion.

I see you don't leave any room at all for the fact that Cheney is more than likely INNOCENT, do you? Wouldn't suit your agenda.

[habs4ever]

On any thread that has covered the particulars of this matter on HAL, you have taken no time to ask about the accounting treatments that are at the heart of JW's complaint, but that hasn't stopped you from jumping in with both slippers on, to proclaim "hypocrisy" on the part of the Bush Administration.You aren't in the least troubled enougt to understand the issues involved, yet bleat on with the fervent assurance that JW has something here.

Are you paid by JW ? Do you work for JW??

[Dane]

Wow, FJIC you are wailing about aren't you, going in all different directions.

Oh well, that should be expected from you.

BTW, you really should answer that phone call from Tom Daschle.

JMO, but I think you two would make a good couple.

[Registered]

I know that I've been told that Keyes people see things in "black and white", yet I see so many people defending Bush and Cheney when they don't require any defense. This has nothing to do with Keyes, and I know you're smart enough to know it. It has everything to do with holding our leaders, all leaders, accountable..just as accountable as we previously held Clinton to. He withstood the attacks from the Right, just as Bush will from the Left (or Right). But to sit on FR defending Bush and Cheney at the drop of the hat is simply ridiculous. You can smear with "you're a Carvillite" and call names, but it does little for your cause.

Personally Deb, hypothetically speaking, if I knew the 1% was right more than the other 99% why would or should I join them?

With love,

From a Keyes Worshiper.

[Sabertooth]

...once again, when you put something into quotes, it implies a direct quotation. If you cannot admit your error, there is no point in any further discussion with you.

Have you CONSIDERED using more CAPS? I understand it's a very EFFECTIVE debating tactic.

[habs4ever]

what facts, half pup? Turley is offering his interpretation of a public relations matter, in a very convoluted manner.

Please never stop such a predictable lickspittle.I will miss it so when you do grow a brain.

[Dane]

Nice tactical retreat, Dane, but you still have a ways to go. Under your standards, police would be stymied from just about ANY investigation, lest they operate with a suspicion of guilt. I'm sure the SEC never investigates ANYONE with a suspicion of guilt /sarcasm.

What retreat? You are the one who is more inclined to beleive the DNC/liberal media, IMHO, if anyone has made a retreat in sanity it is you.

[Demidog]

I see you don't leave any room at all for the fact that Cheney is more than likely INNOCENT, do you?

"More than likely?" I presume his innocence. However, it is as I stated, grossly, hideously inappropriate for the President to make a prediction in this regard. It shows that he has a vested interest in the outcome. He is more interested in asserting that Cheney is guiltless than knowing the actual facts.

And he's in a position to sway the outcome. In fact, what are the investigators to think other than they've been given a direct order by his public statements on the matter?

Why wouldn't Bush simply welcome the investigation and tell the American public that if laws were broken, then justice will prevail which is the American ideal if not always the American way?

The level which some of you Bush supporters will go to support things which strain credulity borders on obsession. I am reminded of Clinton's supporters who would refuse to even look at the possibility that Clinton was committing illegal acts. Perjury became "sex."

What does obstruction of justice become? "Confidence in his associates?"

[Jhoffa_]

Klayman will hopefully get the Discovery that he needs to prove his case in court.

"Hopefully" ?

This is sounding more like a smear and a Ray Charles fishing expedition by the minute.

[Registered]

You really are pushing hard that Cheney is bent, how come??

Me, pushing hard that he's bent? Hardly. I think that Cheney will simply go through the washing machine and come out okay (my personal opinion). However, I'm not going to come out swinging for someone knowing that these people that filed suit deserve their day in court. This isn't the O.J. Simpson where the evidence proved him overwhelmingly guilty!! I say let it play out in the courts and wait. That has been my position.

[Howlin]

The level which some of you Bush supporters will go to support things which strain credulity borders on obsession. I am reminded of Clinton's supporters who would refuse to even look at the possibility that Clinton was committing illegal acts.

You just love to say crap like that, don't you? I guess it makes you think you're smarter than the rest of us.

You're the one willing to paint anything this administration done as being wrong. Always looking for some corruption, even twisting facts when there isn't any, trying to make THIS president seem guilty of something. I'm glad I don't live my life looking for the worst in people. You seem to enjoy it though -- go for it.

And don't try that Bush supporter stuff on me. I am and I'm proud to be one. I don't support him on every thing he does, but you can be damn sure that I'm going to be right in here, defending him from specious, bogus attacks like yours.

[Jhoffa_]

Klayman said that?

You heard it yourself.. ?

[Howlin]

This is Klayman's swan song. I hope he enjoys it.

[Registered]

"That matter will run its course...and facts will come out at some time," Bush said

I couldn't have said it better.

[Howlin]

Absolutely. To Wolf Blitzer's face.

[Demidog]

what facts, half pup?

Try these on. By commenting publically that Cheney will be exhonerated, Bush is willfully and publically obstructing justice.

In spite of the fact that Bush claims that his failure to disclose his insider trading for over 8 months is a dead issue, I believe that his father was President of the United States and commanded the SEC which we are led to believe investigated the matter and found "no case" in spite of clear evidence (public admissions) that Bush personally violated the law. Gee. It just isn't possible that the SEC's analysis was influenced by the fact that Bush's father was their commander in chief.

[Jhoffa_]

Then I want proof or a retraction..

That's pandering and a gigantic smear.. There's no other way to view it.

(OH! AND it's a big stick they can use to bash the market and Republicans before the election. Klayman is a complete sellout. )

[Demidog]

You're the one willing to paint anything this administration done as being wrong.

False. But we're not talking about me. We're talking about you and your insistence that the President predicting the outcome of this case is not really obstruction of justice.

[Jhoffa_]

The level which some of you Bush supporters will go to support things which strain credulity borders on obsession. I am reminded of Clinton's supporters who would refuse to even look at the possibility that Clinton was committing illegal acts.

There is some truth to that..

When certain people (not going to personalize) tried to spin CFR into some kind of victory, I became convinced and was reminded of the Clinton rose garden.