Admin
Verse of the Day
The Newsroom
Recent Posts
- Honesty and Civility..A Good Place To Start
- Shall We Dance?
- I Haven’t Deserted You
- Can You Relate?
- Tis Better To Give Than To Receive
Recent Comments
- ~J~ on Honesty and Civility..A Good Place To Start
- Sue on I Haven’t Deserted You
- ~J~ on Can You Relate?
- ~J~ on Happy Thanksgiving
- Piano Girl on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- David M. on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- David M. on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- ~J~ on Bar-B-Que
Blogroll
Newspaper Rack
Categories
Here’s a Washington Post story that says about the same thing the New York Times was quoted as saying yesterday in this post on this blog.
President Bush, facing a growing Republican revolt against his Iraq policy, has rejected calls to change course but will launch a campaign emphasizing his intent to draw down U.S. forces next year and move toward a more limited mission if security conditions improve, senior officials said yesterday.
Top administration officials have begun talking with key Senate Republicans to walk them through his view of the next phase in the war, beyond the troop increase he announced six months ago today. Bush plans to lay out what an aide called “his vision for the post-surge” starting in Cleveland today to assure the nation that he, too, wants to begin bringing troops home eventually.
This time the member of the “Anonymous Family” is called “Senior Official”. Here’s what Senior Official has to say:
“Look, the president understands the American people are frustrated,” said a senior official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging Bush. “We’ve been at this a long time. We’ve sacrificed some of our best and brightest. . . . But they want to see that we have a vision for success that will allow us to gradually downsize our role and reduce our footprint. The president needs to and wants to remind everybody that he shares that frustration.”
We’ll find out today what the president says to confirm the “Anonymous Family’s” reports.
Again, I have no problem with the story if it’s accurate, and I am not questioning the accuracy. I just get irked at people who refuse to be named in newspaper articles when they are quoted.
In something that has interested Guss for a long time, not because of who may be outed, but because it’s a sex scandal, we might as well get the fact Sen. David Vitter’s (R) of Louisiana name has turned up on the D.C. Madam’s telephone rolodex out on the table.
You’ll have to read that one for yourself as I’m not particularly interested in sex scandals whether they be Republican or Democrat.
Finally, President Bush has asked former White House aides Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers to not testify under oath to Congress, asserting Executive Privilege.
“The president feels compelled to assert executive privilege, with respect to the testimony sought from Sara M. Taylor and Harriet E. Miers,” said White House counsel Fred F. Fielding, in a letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House judiciary committees.
“We are extremely disappointed with the White House letter,” said Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
“It is apparent that this White House is contemptuous of the Congress and feels that it does not have to explain itself to anyone,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat.
The president remains willing to provide limited access to documents and private testimony regarding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year, Mr. Fielding said, but not under the compulsion of subpoenas.
Yesterday Guss asked what the president was hiding by not allowing them to testify.
It’s not that he won’t allow them to talk to the committees and answer the questions pertinent to the investigation, but the president does have a right to get advice from his advisors without the fear of that advice being made public so it can be a frank discussion, and as sure as I’m sitting here if it were made available to the committees you can bet someone on the committees or committees’ staffs would leak it to the press.
The second thing is that once they go under oath the panels can go off on a fishing expedition to see what they might be able to find that they don’t already know when the intent is supposedly for this one investigation.
They could end up trying to show scandal in the most innocent thing and fishing expeditions are best left to the sportsmen.
Mr. Leahy and Mr. Conyers accused the White House of not explaining its claim of executive privilege. Democrats requested an explanation of legal precedent, and a detailed record of every document withheld and the legal reasons for the withholding, called a “privilege log.”
“The White House’s refusal to properly justify its basis for this executive privilege claim raises questions about the validity of its assertion,” Mr. Leahy said.
Mr. Fielding dismissed the request for legal precedents with a single sentence.
“In response to your inquiry concerning the mechanics of the president’s assertion of the privilege, you may be assured that the president’s assertion here comports with prior practices in similar contexts, and that it has been appropriately documented,” Mr. Fielding said.
As for the “privilege log,” Mr. Fielding said he was “aware of no authority by which a congressional committee may ‘direct’ the executive” to compile such a document.
Mr. Conyers and Mr. Leahy said they wanted a “privilege log” to help them determine the validity of the president’s privilege claim.
See? Fishing expedition. I’m sure their next trip is already planned and many more are planned up to the election at least.
Maybe the sharks will get a nibble from a minnow.
Written by ~J~
david Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 7:06 amVisit david
I share your lack of interest in sex scandals. We lost that battle to the British under the Christine Keller/John Profumo (spelling?) affair years ago–if anyone except J and I are old enough to remember that. Ah-no one beats the British for a good sex scandal!
Ayschlay Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 8:12 amVisit Ayschlay
Why is this just a fishing expedition given all the tantalizing evidence out there already that officials within this administration have 1) used questionable means to consolidate the GOP hold over government by implanting attorneys that are partisan loyalists and/or will target Democrats; 2) claimed and exercised ever more authority over national security operations while 3) repeatedly treating Congress’s constitutional responsibility of oversight with impunity; and 4) using dubious means to assert executive will (e.g. the late night Gonzalez trip to Ashcroft’s hospital bed).
As I’ve said before, I think there are constitutional issues at stake here. It may be that Congress is over-reacting, but it’s understandable given the way the Bush administration has operated.
~J~ Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 8:16 amVisit ~J~
Ayschlay,
You and I are not going to agree and there is no point in my arguing with you about why I think it’s a fishing expedition.
I’m having a good day today and want to keep it that way.
~J~ Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 8:18 amVisit ~J~
Yep, we certainly have to watch over that eeeevillll Bushco. He’s bad people. Never been one as bad or dishonest as he is. And of course all the accusations you pose in your post are correct because…why? Never mind, as I want to keep a good day going. Just being silly in this post.
Guss Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 9:19 amVisit Guss
David and J,
You’re totally missing the point. It’s not about the Sex scandal. It’s about people that love to preach morals and family values to others. I just think these people should be brought into the open for people to see the phonies they really are.
Go here
Or here
~J~ Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 10:37 amVisit ~J~
He didn’t have to tell everyone it was his phone number listed and could have waited for the press to out him.
He said he had confessed to God and his wife and asked their forgiveness.
I’m not the judge of his soul. I’ll take him at his word.
Why do you want to rag on him or anyone else because they made a mistake? You’ve never made a mistake you wish you hadn’t? I know I have.
I thought liberals were the ones who don’t care about sex, and if you want to talk about hypocrisy there’s plenty to go around in DC for each party to take their swipes. Just look at all the hypocrisy going on in Congress right now. What people used to be for they’re now against and vice versa. And I’m not talking about the war or a change of mind. I’m talking about a change of leadership made hypocrites of all of them.
Last year filibusters were the best thing since sliced bread to the Dems and hated by Republicans. This year it’s reversed. Isn’t that also hypocrisy?
Has this man’s sin made him less of a senator as to how he does his job? No, because he did this before he was a senator and when he was a congressman, and he still got elected.
It’s easy to throw stones if you don’t live in a glass house, but I think we all live in glass houses on some topics.
The embarrassment alone should be a big punishment. What is it you want him to do now?
Guss Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 10:41 amVisit Guss
You posted it. I’m only commenting and giving my opinion.
Guss Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 10:54 amVisit Guss
I only wish the politicians would show us who they really are instead of conning us into believing they are something they’re not. It seems as though honesty is a rare commodity in Washington and that applies to both sides of the aisle.
I just feel that elected officials should have someone point out whenever they are caught in a lie or being hypocrites. I haven’t done this to them. They do it to themselves.
Maybe you should ask for an apology from them instead of being angry at me.
~J~ Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 10:57 amVisit ~J~
Vitter’s statement:
As Jesus said, in an incident identical to this except the person standing accused was a woman: “Let him without sin cast the first stone.” They stoned adulteresses in that day.
He then bent down and wrote something in the ground and when He looked up everyone was gone. He asked where her accusers were. She said there were none. He said He didn’t accuse her either and told her to go on her way.
He’s the only one who can judge the state of mind Vitter has right now.
~J~ Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 10:58 amVisit ~J~
I’m not angry at you and he owes me no apology. I’m not his wife and I’m not his God.
Guss Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 10:59 amVisit Guss
J,
As you well know, I have made many mistakes in my life but I’m not an elected official who preaches one thing and does another.
Guss Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 11:01 amVisit Guss
I have probably said more than enough and if I have offended you I apologize.
~J~ Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 11:06 amVisit ~J~
And as you know I’ve blown it a few times myself.
I’m just looking at it from the perspective of a Christian. If he says he asked God and his wife for forgiveness and went to marriage counseling he shouldn’t have to publicly account for it to me.
That’s my standard. Yours may be different and that’s your right. I’m just telling you my reasoning on this.
If a prominent democrat is also on the list and expresses remorse or even if he doesn’t I’m not going to point it out to the public any more than it has been because unless it makes him less of a legislator (which is why we pay them) it doesn’t matter to me. It’s between him, God and his wife and family.
Now if someone is anti-gay and turns out to be gay then I have a problem with that because that is hypocrisy.
The point is, we are all sinners and we all make mistakes. Some just have their names in the papers for it and others just take the embarrassment from a small circle of people who know them.