Skip to comments.
Amid scandals, Bush White House takes a risky path, placing loyalty over public duty.
Philadelphia Inquirer ^
| 7/17/2002
| Jonathan Turley
Posted on 07/17/2002 12:47:25 PM PDT by dirtboy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 401-416 next last
To: Fred Mertz
Good remarks there, dirtboy. Good to see you on the boards. Maybe I'll see you in Vegas?Naw, I've recently come down with AIDS - Acquired Income Deficiency Syndrome, so sadly I cannot make it. But thanks for asking.
21
posted on
07/17/2002 1:15:49 PM PDT
by
dirtboy
To: Howlin
Yeah, they've got a legacy alright. I do my best to smudge that sucker every chance I get. Clinton spent more than eight years trashing every witness against him. Nixon has been dead for over five years and we still don't even know the name of the one person who was the most important witness against him. This is only reasonable to the left.
To: dirtboy
Among the unproven allegations are insider trading, questionable personal loans and fraudulent dealings.You can read "unproven" here as being a whispering campagin. I have seen NO charges concerning either one of these guys, have you?
The White House staff has put on a full-court press to refute these allegations of private misconduct.
And what, pray tell, are they suppose to do, sit back and let the press, the Democrats, and apparently people in our own party run wild with speculation and unproven, not even credible charges?
Dick Gephardt thanks you for the work you're doing for the DNC. You and Larry Klayman are doing a bang up job of spreading rumors and false allegations -- talk about the politics of personal destruction.
23
posted on
07/17/2002 1:17:15 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: dirtboy
but I first of all get upset when the Bush Administration starts to emulate the methods of the Clintonistas, and I get even more upset when freepers parade in to engage in Clintonista-style attacks upon someone with valid criticisms of what the Bush Administration is doing... C'mon dirt! Turley's got to keep getting his name in the paper so he can continue to get those appearance fees on the chat shows.
No serious human being actually believes that Harken, which has been vetted in no less than FIVE elections, has one whiff of scandal to it.
As for Cheney, the fact that the only lawsuit filed so far against Halliburtion is from Judicial Watch ought to tell you something.
24
posted on
07/17/2002 1:17:19 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
To: dirtboy
Turley didn't get this kind of coverage in the mainstream media when he was issuing similar condemnations against the methods of the Clinton Administration. You cannot possibly be serious. He was ALL over the place. How the heck do you think WE knew who he was?
25
posted on
07/17/2002 1:19:41 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: sinkspur
Sink, Turley's comments are not about the merits of the Harken and Halliburton matters (I will not dignify them with the scandal label at this point), but instead is about the way the White House is handling these matters, and IMO he is making some valid points. Any time the Bush Administration starts to emulate the Clintonistas, it should give us all a moment of pause. And just because I support Bush, it doesn't mean he should get a free pass or that I should ignore someone like Turley, who was straight-on quite often during Monicagate...
26
posted on
07/17/2002 1:20:50 PM PDT
by
dirtboy
To: dirtboy
I'm writing to your level....
My personal attacks?
You say people don't like to hear bad things about Bush on a conservative board like it's some sort of insight. Well, it isn't.
I've come to expect much better quality than that tripe you just posted.... Unfortunately, I don't expect that much from you.
To: sinkspur
If there was anything to Harken, Ma would have found it and wiped the floor with it.
28
posted on
07/17/2002 1:21:56 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Howlin
You can read "unproven" here as being a whispering campagin. I have seen NO charges concerning either one of these guys, have you? Uh, Howlin, that is why Turley used the word "unproven" in the first place - unlike the libs, who have already convicted Bush and Cheney.
Dick Gephardt thanks you for the work you're doing for the DNC.
Ah, the classic method of questioning motives. It's a sad day when freepers resort to these kind of ad hominem attacks.
You and Larry Klayman are doing a bang up job of spreading rumors and false allegations -- talk about the politics of personal destruction.
You just engaged in such.
29
posted on
07/17/2002 1:23:51 PM PDT
by
dirtboy
To: dirtboy
is about the way the White House is handling these matters, and IMO he is making some valid pointsHow, by Ari saying the charges are "without merit?" Tell us EXACTLY what the White House is doing that is like Clinton?
BTW, that answer was in response to a reporter's question. Should Ari have said, "No comment?"
I suspect, if he had, you'd be right on this forum, whining about that, too!
30
posted on
07/17/2002 1:24:28 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: dirtboy
I am no fan of Bush, but this "Harkin and Halliburton" stuff doesn't appear to have traction, at least as far as i can see. I used to respect Turley. Now, he is just like that other Jonathan that appeared on FR to enlist FReeper help for writing his book (Tooley?) that turned out to be a Clinton Rumpkisser tome.
'Pod
31
posted on
07/17/2002 1:24:52 PM PDT
by
sauropod
To: dirtboy
By the way, If either Cheney or Bush are guilty of crimes, get them the heck out. I don't back criminals just because they're Republican criminals.
To: dirtboy
I still like Turley, he makes a valid point, but just as an unneccessary IMO warning: just that public WH staff shouldn't be involved in the response to questions about the personal allegations.
I think he's going a little far in the way he thinks this rule should be applied (gagging Fleischer for example!).
Clinton administration public officials did much more.
"press secretary Ari Fleischer and others defended the President's actions as a citizen and stated that the White House was consulting with "private accountants and private counsels" as part of its response. The White House staff coordinated the response to the allegations, even sending allies fax answer sheets (À la Clinton) titled "If You Get Asked About Harken." "
"consulting with "private accountants and private counsels" " boy, this would never have occured to either of the Clintons.
33
posted on
07/17/2002 1:25:37 PM PDT
by
mrsmith
To: dirtboy
You posted this article and chose to add your two cents worth, not me.
You ARE doing the work of the DNC when you whine about "what the White House is doing" WITHOUT PROVIDING THE BACK UP for what you're talking about.
34
posted on
07/17/2002 1:25:51 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: FreeTally
"Yeh, we know what kind of "investigating" goes on when the government is in charge of the investigation. "Yep, there seems to be tugs on the Bush gonads from time to time to keep his policies pointing where the rider wants him to go. Too many changed positions.
If there is some dirt - business, governor or personal, the GOP better surface a replacement soon before the country drowns in Gore or McCain.
35
posted on
07/17/2002 1:26:06 PM PDT
by
ex-snook
To: Bigoleelephant
Absolutely. But the writer and the poster are trying to imply that we all WILL back Bush no matter what.
36
posted on
07/17/2002 1:26:37 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Howlin
Right. That's why, to refute his argument, I stated I would not back Bush.
To: dirtboy
but instead is about the way the White House is handling these matters, and IMO he is making some valid points. Call me back when the Bush White House hires james carville and sidney blumenthal, until then you have no case, IMHO.
38
posted on
07/17/2002 1:29:03 PM PDT
by
Dane
To: sauropod
Hi, 'Pod. I agree entirely about Harken, as far as Halliburton goes, it's too early to tell, so I'm withholding judgement, but I haven't seen enough yet to call it a scandal. And the charge that Turley is simply trying to stay in the media by attacking the Bush Administration is quite possible. However, these matters happened BEFORE Bush and Cheney were public officials, and his criticisms of Gonzales and Fleischer are, IMO, worth considering.
Instead, we see folks come barging into the thread, many of whom seem to not have bothered reading the article, and immediately commence the ad hominem attacks against Turley because he has left the reservation.
39
posted on
07/17/2002 1:29:15 PM PDT
by
dirtboy
To: dirtboy
Turley's overblown rhetoric over two "allegations" that even he admits may have no merit (they don't) is astounding.
What the hell kind of question is this?
Whether to decline to assist an embattled and much-loved president may be the most difficult test of principle for any public official.
How is Bush "embattled" by two phony "scandals."
I'm sorry. I don't think Turley has ANY valid points, including his criticism of Ari Fleischer for sending out talking points. He does this, of course, to counter the talking points that the DNC sends out.
Politics is war, dirt, and you either fight or get killed.
40
posted on
07/17/2002 1:29:49 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 401-416 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson