Bush goes Nixonian--invokes Executive Privelege

I almost hate to use the term...as I used to wince in seeing ACea throw this term around all the time but Acea was there first and I think he was accurate in characterizing the Bush administration.

McClatchy's Washington bureau published this story http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/usattorneys/

Karl Rove didn't appear before Congress and this statement came out of the White House regarding Rove's status vis a vis testifying

Executive Privelege was the mechanism Nixon utilized to try and avoid investigation into his administration about the Watergate breakin and coverup.

Nixon used every tool in his power to avoid investigation. Ultimately the battle went to the Supreme Court which ruled against Nixon and against the claim for blanket executive privelege.

It was the ultimate test of the executive privelege claim.

The Bush administration, IMHO, is a rogue group, that governs in a manner that has turned against 230 years of American democracy and the balance of power.

Tight controls eminate from a small partisan group in the White House and probably primarily Cheney's office. Dissonent opinions and actions are limited or squashed. When things go wrong--the administration takes no responsability and shifts the responsability down to underlings who take the hit.

The only way to get to the bottom of this is to access discussions and hard facts out of the Executive office. Blanket Executive privelege makes that impossible.

It is an ultimate constitutional controversy.

Time will tell --but I can't help but see that Bush will go down w/ Nixon as one of the worst presidents ever---and Cheney will go down as the ultimate twisted manipulator behind the scenes.

 

Looks like Anthony was just precient. Not that it took a lot of ESP to see this one coming.

 

this was on PBS a while back
A conversation with Presidential historian Robert Dallekwatch it if you got time

 

There really is no justification for Bush's actions here. He is clearly hiding many things. People want to blame Congress because they voted Dems into office expecting them to impeach the president. It really isn't their fault. The president is invoking executive privilege to protect everyone in his office. This prevents them from having to lie under oath or expose the Bush White House.

The Attorney General should be forcing them to testify, but Gonzales is in Bush's pocket. You might think that every attorney general would be in the president's pocket, since the president appoints him, but that has not historically been the case. Clinton's AG, Janet Reno, for instance, appointed Kenneth Starr as the independent council to investigate the suicide of a Clinton friend and political aide. At the time, Starr was perhaps the most-prominent Republican lawyer in the country, and Reno was aware of this. Starr's finding in the suicide case was that it was just a suicide, but he extended his job further and eventually investigated Clinton's sex life.

What happened to Clinton will not happen to Bush because Bush is protecting himself and everyone around him, and Gonzales is making no attempt to even seem impartial. If you want someone to blame, it's Gonzales. His behavior has become almost comical, with the "I don't recalls" and "I don't recollect doing that." He's the only one forced to testify, and it's clear from his testimony that he's had Alzheimer's for years.

 

Executive Privilege = Aristocracy

The exact thing the Founding Fathers were concerned with when they scripted the Constitution. That is why there is a separation of powers, and one of the powers of the Judicial Branch is to review the Executive Branch.

Invoking Executive Privilege breaks the checks on the Executive Branch, and yields more power to one Branch than is allowed under the Constitution.

But does it really surprise us that Bush continues to thumb his nose at the citizenry and Constitution? It's been his modus operandi since 9/11.

 

Executive Privildege = Something virtually every President invokes and is within their power.

Clinton used it as well. (yeah, I know the argument of "but two wrongs don't make a right." And I see who takes exception with who also.)

I don't blame them at all. Democrats are so filled with hatred for Bush, they are looking for anything they can legally do to take him down. In this case, it's the epitome of democrat hypocrisy at it's finest.

The issue being, over the firing of attorneys. Of course, these attorneys work at the pleasure of the President. The real hypocrisy though, is that Clinton fired ALL US Attorneys under his watch. Bush fired a few. When democrats do it, it's as it should be...realization that Presidents have this authority and that they may fire one, or all attorneys. When democrats are in office, they understand this. When republicans are in office, they do not accept it and try make it an issue. Should have never been an issue in the first place.

On top of that, democrats have done nothing to serve the American people. All their time and resources are spent, creating investigation after investigation, attempting to throw a two mile wide net in the ocean hoping they can catch one fish. This is a disservice to the American people. Blind hatred does not justify this. Democrats have created over 300 investigations since gaining power in office. All based upon their hatred.

The irony here is, if democrats were as willing and able to go after terrorists, in the same manner they go after republicans, no one would question that they care about their country. Sadly though, democrats would rather go after republicans than terrorists.

 

That's hogwash and you know it GTech.

Bush is much more familiar with abusing his position of power than Clinton ever was.

No need to make this a partisan issue. GWB's record speaks for itself. An administration of arrogance and dirty tricks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege#George_W._Bush_Administration

 

GTech, you are holding on to a sinking ship - but do what you do best, in the name of what big brother tells you.

Go get ´em soldier.

 

I agree, your comment below is hogwash. I never asserted anyone used this authority more than another. What I did say, is that others have used it as well, including Clinton.

Invoking a privilege is not a dirty trick. In fact, when reviewing the link you provided, there seem to be three cases. In one case, several instances.

This does not negate the fact that democrats are wasting the American publics time and resources by attempting to launch investigation after investigation in hopes of finding a single fish. It's nothing more than a personal vendetta on their part. It's no wonder Congress is holding a 3% approval rating.

This is merely an opinion from someone who lets alex jones do their thinking. I always welcome opinions. I find it more challenging when someone can actually argue a point and introduce sources. Guerilla made a noble effort to do such. It's a shame you couldn't.

 

GTech, what did you have to say about the Republicans chasing an the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Wasn't that an incredible waste of time? Stop being so partisan, and recognize that there is no great moral divide, just a bunch of self serving idiots on both sides of congress who waste resources and squander the public trust.

As far as "privilege", I think you need to read up on how the Supreme Court views "Executive Privilege". I could say my posts are "Guerilla Privilege" but that makes them neither legal, nor supported by Digital Point.

 

Bush bin Nixon

 

LOL. The queen of cheer leaders must be really happy, you calling him a soldier even as a joke. Next time, you can make it even funnier and call him a MAN.

 

gworld, we agree on a lot a lot of points and I don't agree with many if not most of Gtech's opinions, but he did raise his right hand at one point.

 

Looking at result and his actions, I am pretty sure that he had the fingers in his left hand crossed when he raised his right hand.

 

I appreciate the humor. I am not here to defend Gtech and I think you realize that. You know I am a former soldier so I have that knee jerk reaction when someone belittles the service of a soldier.

That is one of the knee jerk reactions I don't think I will ever lose.

I've said my peace, just know everytime you or anyone insults the honorable service of a soldier, no matter what his opinions may be currently, I get a bruise on my knee from it hitting my desk

 

While Presidents have used executive privelege, it was only with Nixon that the issue went to the Courts to be decided and the Courts ruled against Nixon and the blanket use of executive privelege.

It is the Constitutional duty of Congress to perform oversight. (btw, executive privelege isn't in the constitution). It was developed to protect the citizens against abuses by different aspects of the government against rights of the citizens. It is critical to the process of Democracy and is in stark contrast to how Dictatorships work where only the dictator makes laws.

Bush is now operating in a dictator like manner--and by denying the ability of Congress to perform its Constitutional mandate is essentially denying a fundamental premise of the Constitution.

The everyday American hates this​

Three days ago I was stunned when sitting at lunch next to a guy I hardly know and watching a broadcast on the bridge collapse in Minnesota....this guy, who scarcely knows me said (my paraphrase)...."I hate the way the government is lying about Tillman"

It stunned me. But it shouldn't have.

The Tillman case is simple and easily apparent to every person. There are no complicated legal issues about Geneva Conventions, no questions about what constitutes weapons of mass destruction, no opportunity for slick talk about narrow legal descriptions of words and phrases.

A young American sacrificed a big shot career, millions of dollars and enlisted in the army following 9/11. He was lauded in the Press and by the government. It was something that all could admire and rightfully so for his heroic action, sacrifice of a huge salary and fame, and patriotic response.

On his second tour of duty he was killed by friendly fire. His fellow soldiers knew that immediately.

Someone within the military invented a story (lied) about Pat Tillman dying in a heroic effort. Someone within the military approved it.

Within a week higher ups within the military were warning other higher ups that the story of heroism was false. It was suggested that news of this false story be reported to the President. All of that transpired before a nationally televised funeral of Pat Tillman. His family was not informed that the story the military was putting out was entirely false. Some information about this situation went to the White House

Five weeks after Tillman died and about 4 weeks after the funeral the army admitted that the story was false and Tillman died in friendly fire.

The White House has documents about Tillman's death (and possibly this fake story and cover up) and won't reveal the documents.

Last week in testimony before Congress Rumsfeld and two retired senior army officers took no responsability and couldn't remember anything at all about what they did or when they did it...as regards this situation.

When questioned about issues that make them uncomfortable....this government can't remember anything. I'd have to characterize them as the alzheimer's administration.....or the lying by denying administration.

What is so precious about holding this information back from the public, congress, the Tillman family.

The administration has abused the Tillman family and the memory of Pat Tillman. His entire family has no faith in the government.

This is the simple impact of blanket executive privelege as used by the Bush administration. It is a shield behind which the administration is hiding so they don't even have to show the simplest common curtesy to a patriotic family.

It's no wonder that a regular guy sitting at a lunch counter would blurt out that he hates "this Tillman deal" to someone else about whom he doesn't have the foggiest idea about how I felt.

If the government is being abusive, dishonest, manipulative, possibly breaking laws, lying to the public....it is critical for oversight to continue.

Labeling anyone who criticizes the war in Iraq as a terrorist suporter is on its most basic level immature...but on a more mature and serious basis contrary to the best interests of America. It is similar in character to the actions of terrorists--who threaten to kill anyone who disagrees with them. Its not the same as killing or threatening to kill different opinions....but it is similar.

It kills debate and meaningful thought. It is contrary to the fundamental nature of America.

How STUPID is this Administration Secrecy Issue​

In early 2001, before 9/11 Cheney was charged with developing an energy policy. He held meetings from different experts and constituency groups to formulate an enegy policy. Ultimately Cheney or Cheney's office never revealed who attended the meetings.

On July 12, '07 the Washington Post published an article from a source who had been or remains in the administration. The source was confidential and not revealed. The article lists people who attended the meetings.

The reporters then contacted several reported attendees of the meetings, who were representatives of various energy and oil groups. These people acknowledged they attended the meetings. Some thought it was stupid that this was kept secret.

Executive privelege is respected by people within the government. Blanket hiding of all facts is not supported by the Constitution nor does it reflect the basic fundamental protection of rights to American citizens and it has left the Tillman family feeling abused by the Administration.

 

Unfortunately, every boundary the government pushes helps to build a case for legal precedent, and pushing the envelope further.

Somewhere along the way, we forgot that democracy is something we all have to defend, maintain and practice. We got fat and happy letting the government make more and more decisions for us, to the point where they actually have a fan club of citizens who defend the indefensible and ostracize anyone who criticizes the manner in which they operate.

Sure there are nutjobs like Alex Jones out there. Self serving sensationalists.

But they aren't half as dangerous as the people who would tell you not to ask questions.

 

Interesting question. Back then, I didn't know the difference between a democrat, a republican, a conservative or a liberal. I voted for Clinton twice. Why? Because like many Americans, I wasn't into politics, didn't know who stood for what and voted based upon the was said in debates and speeches that I felt would best represent me.

What did I think about the Monica scandal? At the time, I thought it was a farce because I didn't understand what was going on. I actually wrote a letter to Representative Mac Thornberry expressing my disapproval.

Of course, after 9/11, that changed everything. You know how people used to say it was a wakeup call? Guess what? I woke up. In late 2001, I began participating in debates on local forums. I used to call myself an independent because I had NO IDEA what a democrat or republican was. I wasn't about to say one, without know. As time went by, many of my adversaries would point out that I was a Conservative based on my arguing points. I sort of discovered who I was and what I stood for through that time period.

In retrospect, I realize how gullible I was then. I realized that I simply didn't know about politics and what the varying parties stood for. And even today, I'm less concerned about domestic issues. Both parties want to help improve medical care in our country, they just have different means. What I care about most, is national security. That is what the President is charged with...protecting our country. And it's clear that Republicans take this very serious and that democrats do not.

One investigation...one President caught bold faced lying, one president abusing his power to cover up a massive lie. Verses another President who has cooperated, despite the democrats launching over 300 investigations in a wide reaching net to try and catch a fish. Yeah, you might say there is a HUGE difference.

I say again...if democrats were as serious about going after terrorists as they are about going after Republicans, no one would question their patriotism. As it stands, democrats have bent over backwards to ensure terrorists have every advantage they need to succeed.

 

You're really much better speaking from the heart.

I'd like to think I am a conservative as well, but the idea of running off half-cocked and putting Americans in harms way abroad to save Americans (still in) harms way at home bothers me.

I don't know the final death count on the WTC off the top of my head, but I imagine that we have exceeded it many times over in Iraq, counting both civilian and military casualties.

And speaking only for myself, this doesn't seem like a much safer world than it was on 9/12.

 

Boy do I ever agree with that as it relates to your comments, GTech.

GTech: How do you evaluate the many comments that come from people w/military experience who suggest other ways to fight terrorism aside from the war in Iraq?

and what about the NIE report that said that al-queda is basically as strong today as they were on 9/10.

As it regards fighting terrorism....that was a very disturbing report.