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

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

[Deb]

Your question is BS and you know it.

[sinkspur]

Well, that generally is the point of an Op-Ed column.

I'm glad you can derive a theme from this article.

I can't figure out why Turley bothered writing it.

[Howlin]

but I haven't seen enough yet to call it a scandal.

Man, you are desperate to justify this, aren't you?

It looks like to me you're upset because we're not upset with this article.

You put it up; be prepared to defend it.

[dirtboy]

You simply can't allow these accusations to go unanswered!

Sink, we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I think Fleisher could have added dignity to the process by saying "these matters occurred before both the President and Vice-President were in office, and I defer questions on these matters to their private counsel" - and often times Clinton's lawyer Kendall handled the matter

Once again, sink, thanks for keeping this a debate instead of a questioning of motives.

[habs4ever]

Oh, does this mean no flowers, then? ;-)

[There They Go Again]

The Bush defenses are lame: this has been investigated ad nauseum; this is x years old; etc.
The corporate corruption scandal is one of incapable and undermotivated boards of directors, not corporate executives. Severe criminal penalties aren't going to slow down the Andrew Fastow-types. They are plenty clever enough to hide their ill-gotten gains and they can afford top lawyers who'll confuse a jury enough to avoid a conviction. The solution lies in our ensuring that we have competent and confident directors who are compensated primarily by stock options that vest in 3 - 5 years. Then they can stop the overly generous compensation packages, as well as stop the accounting shenanigans that will unravel in 3-5 years.
The problem is: Bush himself was an underqualified celebrity director and so it is no wonder he doesn't recognize the problem.

[Dane]

I think Fleisher could have added dignity to the process by saying "these matters occurred before both the President and Vice-President were in office, and I defer questions on these matters to their private counsel" - and often times Clinton's lawyer Kendall handled the matter

So you are now saying that Ari should have handled it like the Clinton administration.

Oh well the old addage about "digging a deeper hole" is being proved by you, IMHO.

[dirtboy]

but I haven't seen enough yet to call it a scandal.

Man, you are desperate to justify this, aren't you?

No, but you seem desperate to avoid the fact that you have misquoted both myself and Turley. Howlin, I AM AGREEING that the Halliburton matter is not a scandal from what I have seen so far. But you are twisting my words here to try and justify your assertion that I claimed haven't followed this matter - and the fact that you are twisting a statement that basically agrees with your position on the matter is, quite frankly, a sorry indication of the lengths you will pursue to avoid admitting you made a mistake.

It looks like to me you're upset because we're not upset with this article.

No, I'm upset when someone questions my motives and misquotes me and the author.

You put it up; be prepared to defend it.

Uh, Howlin, I put it up for debate. Perhaps you would care to emulate Sinkspur, who had done an admirable job of doing just that, without misquoting me or the author, or questioning my motives.

[Howlin]

No, I haven't twisted your words; I said if they didn't answer, you'd be here demanding to know what they didn't.

To put an end to this bickering, how about you assuring me that during the Clinton years, you, personally, advocated that nobody in the Clinton administration answer questions except Clinton. Can you point me to a post where you said just what you're saying on this thread?

[dirtboy]

Did you mean you were looking for more to satisfy yourself it IS a scandal? If you had read all the threads on this, you'd KNOW there is nothing there

Uh, Howlin, the SEC is investigating this matter, so I am not alone in being undecided about that matter. Upon the conclusion of that investigation, I will decide whether or not Cheney engaged in malfeasance.

Is that so hard to understand?

[Howlin]

I guess that's why I'm so confused; we're being accused of acting like Clintonistas, while at the very same time, dirtboy is encouraging Bush and Cheney to stonewall!

[dirtboy]

To put an end to this bickering, how about you assuring me that during the Clinton years, you, personally, advocated that nobody in the Clinton administration answer questions except Clinton. Can you point me to a post where you said just what you're saying on this thread?

Uh, Howlin, exactly WHAT does that have to do with anything? Drop it. Or, even better, admit that you misquoted Turley and me.

[Dane]

No, I'm upset when someone questions my motives and misquotes me and the author.

Let's put up the whole quote from your reply #39.

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.

So you were saying that Harken is nothing and Halliburton may have potential as a "scandal".

You did not dismiss the liberal media/DNC spin, even though there are a plethora of threads debunking the liberal media/DNC spin about Halliburton on FR.

[dirtboy]

I guess that's why I'm so confused; we're being accused of acting like Clintonistas, while at the very same time, dirtboy is encouraging Bush and Cheney to stonewall

Uh, Howlin, how is it stonewalling to have the official White House spokesman defer questions about the personal conduct of Bush and Cheney prior to their tenure in office to their personal attorneys?

But you are doing better. At least this time you didn't put stonewalling in quotes.

[Howlin]

I did NOT misquote and you know it; I was merely suggestion what YOU WOULD SAY. If you don't understand that, that's not my problem.

You are, however, demanding a double standard.

[mrsmith]

Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
July 10, 2002
"Q As you know, Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit on behalf of shareholders at Halliburton, alleging accounting improprieties during the time Vice President Cheney was chief executive. What's the White House reaction?
MR. FLEISCHER: The suit is without merit. And as you indicate, this is a suit filed vis-a-vis Halliburton, and it's appropriate to address any further questions to Halliburton. "

Well, Howlin, I guess we'll never hear a reason why Ari shouldn't tell them the "White House reaction".

[Howlin]

Did you or did you not give the same advice to the Clinton White House?

[dirtboy]

So you were saying that Harken is nothing and Halliburton may have potential as a "scandal".

Uh, Dane, as I told Howlin, the SEC is investigating Halliburton, and I will withhold my personal judgement on the matter until they are done. Is that so absurd?

[Ann Archy]

I think it takes more than this to make Bush and Cheney "reel". Get real Phily Inquirere....you wusses.

[Howlin]

Well, well, very interesting.