Quote:
|
so you are backtracking by attempting to say that holder's failure to prevent the rich pardon, which of course as I have correctly pointed out over and over he absolutely, with no qualification, could NOT stop, is by your rationale something that shows he cannot make a fair decision on the cia case?
|
Quote:
yuck yuck yuck.
that's almost as ridiculous a saying he is a left handed person, so he can't make a fair decision on a right handed suspect...
newsflash: there is no connection.
|
Not really surprising since you couldn't connect the dots with why it was a concern when I first brought it up with your : "??? presidential pardons? uh, come back to earth will ya?" But it isn't rocket science for most people. I'm not backtracking on anything. Our current AG is perfectly capable of using his position for political purposes. He used his position to bypass the rules and procedures and did it for political reasons. His role wasn't to stop or make a pardon go through but to give his opinion if the subject fit the usual and customary requirements. if you can make a case of why his opinion and conduct as it pertained to his duty shouldn't be considered political and bring up a concern the current decision to investigate being a political ploy to benefit the current administration feel free.
The point was he showed the ability to be less than independent and it was a pretty big example he was quite capable of using the office of the AG for political reasons. It doesn't matter if he could have stopped the pardon or not. We were discussing if the CIA interrogation hearings were a politically ploy or not.
You want to keep focusing on if he was able to top stop a pardon instead of his opinion of neutral leaning to positive being wildly at odds with the facts and showing every indication of being politically motivated, keep on looking foolish. That was my original reason to bring it up and it's the reason he was dragged in front of Congress in 2001 and why it was asked at his conformation hearing.
Quote:
what? congress was majority republican during bush's first term, and in his second term he got nothing accomplished...except the bailouts at the end.
bush was successful prior to 9/11 by taking democrat positions (esp on nclb). obama has a much more difficult job managing congress, esp the left side of the party.
post 9/11 he used the tragedy to his political davantage.
|
Really? I could have sworn I saw Daschle and Gephardt standing in front of the Capital holding up a box of detergent saying the Republican tax cuts would give the regular folks the detergent while they get the washer and dryer. The Dems went from vehemently and loudly promising to fight to the bitter end over tax cuts to handing out rebate check. I could have sworn I saw Bush and Kennedy signing a bipartisan NCLB as you say. I thought I saw the crew of a spy plane accused of downing Chinese fighter get them back with little rancor and using diplomacy instead of threats. The idea he used fear and threats to pass his agenda isn't accurate.
He got reelected in '04 and the Congress remained a Republican majority despite an unpopular war and a full court press of the Democrats. He was able to pass funding for Iraq and there was little change after the '06 switch of majorities leading to a historically low congressional approval rating. He showed political courage in forcefully pushing for the surge at the very lowest point of the Iraq conflict.
Bush took 36 months before he dropped below a 50% approval rating and that was after the clearly controversial Patriot Act and Gitmo among others.
Obama is playing checkers in a chess match, and your calling an overwhelming majority of his Party not needing a single Republican vote to pass legislation as a "disadvantage" after an election where the American people obviously want change is ludicrous. He used Afghanistan during the campaign to revitalize his image after stepping on his genitalia over the Iraq conflict and even that's currently biting him on the ass.
9-11 was a totally surreal event for most of us and Bush took clear and decisive steps to address it. There was little doubt of his policies towards North Korea and Iran. You might vehemently disagree with his stance, but it wasn't a mystery
This is a flameout of epic proportions. It's hard to understand why the concept of accusing people with reasonable concerns and questions as being racist and intellectually challenged generating a backlash is such a difficult one.