Features

mburbank · #1

Just about every editorial page in the country has said the AG should step down. The Dallas Texas paper came pretty close to saying it.

What do you all think?

I think he needs to go. Either he knew and approved that DA's (republican appointed DA's) were being fired for not pushing the administration agenda OR he let eight DA's get canned without ever involving himself in the process at all, which coupled with the whole FBI breaking the law thing would say to me that he can't or doesn't know how to do his job.

It's the regularly asked Bush apponitee question:

Totally corrupt or completely incompetant?

kahljorn · #2

I think it's called the Peter Principle when you are promoted to a position of incompetence.
An interesting question is if the incompetence causes the corruption because they just don't know what to do so they just say, "Fuck it." It could even work vice versa but that would require some extra stuff to happen (such as corruption leading to being in a position of incompetence, like cheating to get a job or something).

Either of those are possibilities ;o

Preechr · #3

No, he won't. I can't believe you are getting this worked up over this. He shouldn't have apologized as far as that goes, really... Kevin already pointed out what I figured you must already have known, though I'm starting to wonder if maybe you just blacked the Clinton years out altogether... Don't you remember Janet Reno firing ALL the US attorneys? I'm not saying that's worse so this is forgivable, just that it's what they can and do do. Yes, it's political in nature. It always is. It's part of a US attorney's job. It's a political position, and if you don't pull your political weight for the political people that politically installed you, you get politically fired and politically replaced.

Oh, wait... maybe it's me that's senile... I forgot the Max Template: (Bush Staffer) + Something... ANYTHING! = He/She should most definitely resign... I mean, that's just the right thing to do in one of these Something... ANYTHING! situations, right? It's a valid strategy at least. I suppose I have to give you points for being consistent. If the Bush administration was fully following your personell advice, everybody from Cheney to Barney would have had to quit over Something... ANYTHING! by now. They would surely have had to have hired and subsequently fired every single Republican in the country by now, and would have had to start resorting to hiring Democrats to keep the government running. You crafty devil! I see what you're doing!

sspadowsky · #4

Might I point out the fundamental difference between this and the "b-b-b-b-but.... but Clinton!" argument?

Under Clinton, any Federal Prosecutor appointed to replace those fired still had to go through Senate confirmation. Now (Thanks, PATRIOT ACT!), El Presidente can pick people without all that pesky "checks and balances" nonsense.

Sorry to interrupt. Please continue with the "everything is super" rhetoric.

Oh, and Preech, there's a LOT of deplorable shit over which Bush and Co. (AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS) should have resigned and haven't, but I guess that's one of those benefits of not having a conscience.

Preechr · #5

Honestly, I am really not arguing that. To me, the easiest method for completely writing off a person on moral grounds is to have him or her win an election. If I actually thought "everything is super" I probably wouldn't be posting as much when this stuff comes up. I think things are inadvertently going to work out for the best, despite the best misguided efforts of the leaders involved. George W Bush's positions on terrorism and globalization might come from the wrong place, but the big efforts being made toward his admittedly unthoughtful ends are serving "my" ultimate goals, so I can live with it.

The people I read are also talking to John Kerry and all that jazz, and those folks also seem to be on board as best they can... BUT only in as much as they or any other politician can come to grips with the reality of the situation.

mburbank · #6

Preech doesn't think all things are super. BUT if I get him correctly, (tell me if I don't) he thinks all bad behavior is equal bad behavior, and I strongly disagree.

Dude. Asked to testify before congress, Gonzales said 'Mistakes were made'. Hmmmm. What should anybody in politics know about that line? Why is it so naggingly familiar? Where have I- OH THAT'S RIGHT, IT'S THE EXACT CHOICE OF WORDS NIXON USED IN REFERENCE TO WATERGATE that people have made fun of him over for decades! It falls in the same category as "If the Pressident does it then it's not illegal" and "I was only following orders".

If the AG doesn't know not to phrase his blundering and or malfeasance any other way, he shouldn't have a drivers liscence, let alone be top cop.

Plus, what Sspad said. t comes back to checks and balances ovber and over and over. Bush co don't like 'em, because as bad as previous dogs have smelled, these dogs smell worse.

sspadowsky · #7

What's wrong with wanting to see some of these arrogant sons-of-bitches get their comeuppance? Granted, considering all the shit this administration has pulled, it would be like getting Al Capone for tax evasion instead of all those murders, but still- as much as they've done, it would be nice to see any of them pay for at least part of it.

mburbank · #8

He's my great white whale, Preech. The Kirk to my Kahn.

No, seriously, though, and I've said this before. If I read you right, you think the levels of corruption and danger to the nation posed by this administration is on a par with the general, permanent background level of corruption of most administrations.

I think W's administration (and the administration I hate, not just it's dimwitted, churlish carved wooden figurehead) has lept ahead into a whole new area of thuggish manipulation and has attempted things that would have made Nixon blush. Well, no, not exactly, since I think Nixon had many similar long term goals (and I think a large part of the flavor of this administration is directly related to things the old Nixon hands failed to achieve that time around). But Nixon would never have dreamed of going where W et al have gone.

That's my opinion, and it's why I hate them so much. Now no one has to agree, but I'm not really out in the wilderness on this one. A large group of renowned presidential scholars actively debate whether Bush is the worst President in American history.

The AG scandal is in some ways ridiculous. I think it shows a massive level of completely uneccassary lying, and there are so many, many areas more important to me. But I think this admin. has been so bad, it's like a massive underground oil field. Anywhere, anywhere you choose to drill, huge gouts of cronieism, cynicism, contempt for the rule of law and the constitution, grotesque levels of personal enrichment etc. etc. etc will come gushing up.

The AG scandal to me is emblematic of the administration. Expose it to the light of day and the very, very best you can say is it's a case of massive incompetence, the kind of shit anybody would fired from their jobs for on a daily basis. That's if you buy there was no corruption and no lieing at all.

Yes, politics is ugly, and there are always similarities between this admins bullshit and others. But there are similarities between breaking your finger in a car door and a fatal collision that forces your indentifaction via dental records.

Preechr · #9

I don't deny that Bush pushes limits and breaks rules. I agree that his administration has been full of bad actors that have been pulling our government into the dark abyss for 30 years or more. Every elected administration is subject to mostly the same set of shadowy cigarette-smoking-men with disturbing agendas. Government of any kind has always been and always will be extremely suseptible to corruption. The original American Republic was built with protections against that known threat, but We The People traded it for pork-filled Democracy.

I have been accused of being naive many, many, many, many times. I guess I come off as overly optimistic somehow, though I share a similar sort of brooding cynicism to your own. You would use the unique power of government guns to tax the hell out everybody in order to equalize all people on the belief that one man's money can be used to abuse other people. Government is the one entity in our society with which we entrust the power to kill in our name. I think we need to SEVERLY limit where, why, when and how we utilize it, and by we I also mean presidents. All of them.

You don't like one form of government abuse, yet you'd love to see government abused in other ways. It's all the same thing. The government you could abuse to equalize us is the government that can also be abused by Dick Cheney. In for a penny, in for a pound.