9 Comments so far

1. Shane March 21st, 2007 1:44 pm

   Talk about an “open and transparent” government. What does the Administration have to hide if they will not allow public testimony under oath and on the record?

2. Ragdoll March 21st, 2007 2:29 pm

   Exactly, Shane. I’m oppposed to the death penalty but people submitted to it, and who are sometimes innocent of the crime for which they are executed or any other crime that would deserve the penalty, are paying a high and terrible price because it is the law of the land. Many are poor, underprivliged, and/or poorly defended.

   I do not see how the United States can continue allowing its citizens to be exectued in the name of the law but allow its President to conform to the law or not on whimsy.

3. jp March 21st, 2007 3:21 pm

   We need to get these scoundrels out of office ASAP. I keep thinking back to the Clinton- Monica Lewinsky “scandal” and comparing that non-issue to the crimes that have been committed by this gang of thieves, scofflaws, and liars and wonder, where is the impeachment effort?
   The democrats are afraid of being too “political” by confronting an administration whose main strategy has been to politicize everything, to divide and conquer, to hell with the national interest.
   I need to sit down now. I don’t think my blood pressure can handle two more years of this gang.

4. blessthebeasts March 21st, 2007 6:33 pm

   If any administration needs to testify, under
   oath and in public, it is this one. I’m sure
   the presidiot doesn’t even recognize the irony of his claims to “executive privilege”, even though his crimes are so very much worse than Nixons’. It is so annoying to have to hear and read of his nonsensical whining day after day. Let’s hope the rest of Congress will get on board with Dennis Kucinich and put impeachment smack on the table.

5. opeluboy March 21st, 2007 6:58 pm

   I don’t read anything the NYT puts out, and I wish progressive sites would stop lending them credibility. They make Hearst look balanced.

   Or are you all unaware of just how much condemnation the Times deserves for the situation we’re now in? Or do the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis mean nothing to you people? Even now, Gordon is continuing the extreme yellow journalism of his fellow traitor, Judith Miller, agitating for war against Iran.

   Stop reprinting the NYT. They are scum.

6. Ronald White March 21st, 2007 10:21 pm

   The Democratic leaders were right to reject the offer, despite Mr. Bush’s threat to turn this dispute into a full-blown constitutional confrontation.

   Once in a while George Bush speaks the truth even if he may not know that he is . ” … to turn this dispute into a full-blown constitutional confromtation was precisely the intention of the Founding Fathers.

   The threat implies the same inevitable dire consequences if George Bush were to ever threaten to close down Abu Ghraib.

   At least Br’er Rabbit’s scheme was clever and calculating and his brier-phobia was a lie.

7. montemerrick March 22nd, 2007 3:33 am

   opeluboy March 21st, 2007 6:58 pm

   right on! the longer i read that piece, the angrier i got - oh sure look at the ballsy NYT - where were they when colin powell lied to the UN. or everytime dick cheney opened his mouth - dont get me wrong, i’d be quite happy to see bush et al take a fall for this minor scandal, just as nixon wnet down for a dirty trick rather than bombing cambodia, or al capone for income tax evasion rather than murders - but for crying out loud - i am sick to death of the NYT

8. MollyJ March 22nd, 2007 8:05 am

   Thanks for sharin’, opeluboy.

   Probably if a newspaper doesn’t make you made enough to put it in a bird cage now and then, it isn’t doing it’s job. And certainly there has been no public indication that the press has thoughtfully examined how it let itself be used by this administration.

   But when they’re right, they’re right.

   I went to c-span to watch the President’s speech. This man is the most weasely guy. Never in the context of his speech did he spell out that his people would be available for interview to mean no transcript, no oath. That was courtesy of C-spans helpful titles.

   He can’t even say it. He can’t even _say_ “I’m going to let them talk but in a way that we will be able to cloud and disown any difficult statements.”

   Either way, the plan is delay and obfuscate. (Ah, the NIXON playbook!) But at least, WE HOPE the Dems won’t let themselves be door mats. Let the American people see how this man cannot tell it straight to save his soul.

9. auspiciousbunny March 23rd, 2007 2:06 pm

   opeluboy, I hear you about the NYT.

   There are a lot better news outlets, that is for sure. They miss the mark on Iraq, then as usual, they make up for it on the Op Ed page. They miss the point of other stories as well.

   I worked with a Nigerian activist who descibed for me what he, family and friends went through with Shell Oil and the Nigerian Army. The last article in the Times I read described the problem as a conflict over tribal land and “ethnic strife between tribes”!! No mention of the problem of big oil companies wreaking destruction on the river, air and land.

   According to this man who grew up as a member of one of the tribes, these tribes aren’t the ones doing the fighting. The govt. uses violence to force them off their land for Shell and Condoleezeoil.

   Inter-tribal fighting was basically a trumped up lie, yet reported as truth by NYT. And in this particular article, the Times made no mention of the environmental disaster that has resulted in the poisoning and displacement of thousands of Nigerian people. It was incredible.

   Once again, they perpetuated the media’s favorite myth: “We big guys are always right, and the big media is always an authority” (i.e. little people whose lives are being destroyed should shove off quietly.)

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)