I'm confused. Why would this Admin go after the big players in the "ownership society? Aren't many of these wealthy John Doe's the same ones the Admin says deserves to have their tax cuts made permanent? Or could the group of John Doe's consist of a bunch of left-leaning, Obama-supporting Hollywood types? Or maybe the Swiss banks refused to take Bush and Cheney on as clients so, here's their retribution. Just sayin'.

Posted at July 1, 2008 12:52 PM in response to Today's Must Read

Seems to me the out-sourced war machine saw the investigation of the "dudes" as something that needed an organized cover-up. Don't want to draw any attention that might impede the flow of unaudited, no-bid, cost-plus payments to other contractors like, maybe, KBR? Again, it's what we don't already know that's worrying me more. Can we impeach already?

Posted at June 23, 2008 1:23 PM in response to Waxman Says U.S. Embassy in Albania Concealed Info About Arms Shipment

What's the point? No one has the stones to impeach. This week alone we've had undeniable proof of torture in the form of medical examinations, and proof it was designed and initiated top down, and not bottom up. McLellan gives us today nothing we didn't know before. Executive privilege over a smog waiver? Really? A lesson in delayed gratification perhaps: Scott Horton at Harper's writes that certain unnamed NATO allies have prepared a war crimes prosecution just in case anyone on the War Council member or Bush/Cheney happens to step foot in Europe. Maybe then we'll see justice.

Posted at June 20, 2008 4:03 PM in response to Waxman: "I Don't Think We've Had a Situation Like This Since Richard Nixon"

These convenient memories amaze me(Haynes). What could have been promised to all of these forgetful guys that keeps them from remembering anything material? Loyalty oath? I guess Haynes has his golden parachute (Chevron council). Is it simply that the forgetful ones are the ones who know that frankness puts them on the hook for crimes? I envision a series of hearings next year with a bunch of former Bush admin officials all employed by oil companies, telecoms, and republican think tanks and the like and no one remembers a thing.

Posted at June 18, 2008 5:13 PM in response to Today's Must Read

I agree with phil james that Cheney has proven he's perfected his craft. Cheney just intervened on behalf of a campaign contributor. Somebody paid for access and action and got it. Cheney's craft is to deny the evidence and push a different policy that benefits his friends. It's been standard operating procedure for the past 7 years: Fast ships hurt whales? No hard evidence of that. Global warming? No hard evidence. Torture produces bad intelligence? Again, no evidence. Evolution? Nope. No hard evidence of that either. Contrary evidence is not an obstacle to bad policy-making for this bunch. Deny that the evidence is evidence of anything. We heard Bush explain that to Martha Raddatz yesterday. Remember? He said we're succeeding in Afghanistan. All those reports of violence, assassination attempts, whatever. What are you going to believe: the evidence or what your president tells you?

Posted at April 30, 2008 3:03 PM in response to Cheney's Office: (Do Not) Save The Whales

I'm with you fredman. But, you'd think with all the legal horsepower they've had available to redefine torture out of existence, stonewall congressional subpeonas, and find ways to wiggle out of international treaties, that they might actually have an attorney or two available to help them understand the extent of the powers they already have under the revised FISA.

Posted at February 27, 2008 11:35 AM in response to Today Must Read

So, when will he announce that, if elected, he will retain Cheney as VP so that Dick can continue the outstanding work of the past 7 years?

Posted at February 18, 2008 1:44 PM in response to McCain Previews General Election Strategy: Dems Were Wrong About Iraq

I'm with you all. Kills me that our elected officials so enthusiastically call a ball player a liar when they can't muster the courage to do the same with the administration.

Posted at February 14, 2008 10:42 AM in response to Our Congress

The contempt res and civil suit are a waste of time. Go for impeachment. If you haven't done it yet, you should visit congresswoman Zoe Lofgren's site and read her letter to Conyers exploring impeachment. You should also read the PDF of a report that was prepared to brief congress on the history of impeachment. It was prepared in 1974 as many talked of impeaching Nixon. The historical references are chilling: It's as though the framers of the constitution saw GWB in our future. Congress should also consider impeaching Scalia for torture comments yesterday. This guy has no place speaking to the foreign press representing America with those views. He added to the embarassment our nation is already suffering.

I want to see McCain campaigning for another Bush term while Bush is going through impeachment proceedings.

Posted at February 13, 2008 4:02 PM in response to Conyers Introduces Contempt Resolution, Call for Lawsuit against White House

No wiretapping investigation.
No torture investigation.
What type of hearing was this? Oversight?
Sorry, can't call it that.
Needs a more accurate name.
Suggestions?

Posted at February 8, 2008 8:59 AM in response to Mukasey: The Law Is What The Justice Department Says It Is