world

Bush claims privilege to withhold CIA leak records

22 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments
Login to comment

God damnit, kick these criminals out of the government

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't believe we let government officials do things like this. But I really can't believe that people are going to think of this as a "first". Additionally, I really can't believe people here are are coming to the aid of a CIA agent. Since have they become part of the "good" guys group against the evil US government?

All in all, this goes to show you should never put a politician above the law as many Bush supporters will do, but the others will do the same for yet another politician in the future.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"God damnit, kick these criminals out of the government"

I agree. Waxman and his cohorts should be kicked out of government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Executive privilege should not be invoked to prevent embarrassing or even criminal disclosure involving top-level administration officials including the president himself. Yet what other reason could there be for GWB's action?

Here I'm reminded of the argument they have advanced to defend their warantless wiretapping program, "If you have nothing to hide why do you object?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee: I think you can look on the brighter side, at least we are being told that wiretapping is going on. Other places a government would just do it without telling anyone and if anyone were to complain, that said gov would just shrug their shoulders.

Don't get me wrong, I am not overly for wiretapping but neither am I overly against it if it is done right. On the criminal side of things, there have been people let off due to warranted wiretapping that missed a point and we are not talking your average Joe!

In either case, this goes to show the the US gov is getting way too big. Do you think that once Obama takes over all these eavesdropping programs are going to stop? I don't. What scares me, is complainers now will find reason.

The government needs to be smaller, much smaller. Once that happens, we can watch them more carefully.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is a certain logic that when a criminal is caught for a crime that crime tends to be about 1% of the crimes he or she has ever committed, 99% remains unknown. Apply that logic to Bush’s white house & I think the American people should be very, very nervous about what they don’t (yet) know

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip,

The public found out about the warrantless wiretapping six years after it was clandestinely started. Hence the need for retroactive immunity for the phone companies. But here GWB's critics are entitled to ask the same question he has used to defend that program, namely "if you're not doing anything wrong what's the objection?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"a committee vote to hold Mukasey in contempt of Congress"

Heh, 90% of the American people are in contempt of Congress.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The public found out about the warrantless wiretapping six years after it was clandestinely started." I wasn't aware of that. So, this started right after 9-11? Anyone pro wiretapping know if it has helped in any situations? Anyone against, know the opposite?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone pro wiretapping know if it has helped in any situations? Anyone against, know the opposite?

That's precisely the point, we don't know anything. When news of the program first became public knowledge GWB defended it on the grounds, "If you're talking to Al Qaeda we want to know about it." How they determine who might be talking to Al Qaeda is unknown. There is no oversight.

By contrast, simply subpoenaing documents is a transparent process. Remember when the Clintons' Christmas card list was subpoenaed by the Republican Congress? I don't know what wrong doing they felt in might reveal, but I doubt it's of the magnitude of Plamegate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This administration has used the office of president and subordanate positions as their playground to enhance their friends, screw the American people out of everydime they could for their cronies and then thumbed their noses at us, screaming "Executive Privilidge" as a means of cover up.

I can't repeat what dick cheney said to Sen. Patrick Leahy, but george bush and dick cheney have been telling us that everytime they cry executive privilidge. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush is a criminal. Shame on ANYBODY who voted for this atrocity. Double that for anyone who voted that thing in twice!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Bush is a criminal"

Yet he hasn't even been charged with any crime, much less been convicted of one!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Bush is a criminal"

And yet just last week at the G-8 summit all these world leaders were smiling and shaking hands with the criminal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hm a crime is not a crime unless it comes to light. At least I have to say that this President knows how to cover his tracks better than Nixon. Give him credit for that at least.......

But one thing this group forgets, if they lose the election and the Dems come to power.......Well let us see what will happen......Ole DC may need a heart transplant if things go bad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, sarge, you sure are rushing to the defense of your scumbag in the white house.... but could you do us all a little favour and PLEASE stop with the cut-n-paste comments? It's really quite embarrassing to see.

Anyway, bush most certainly is a criminal, as are his cronies, and he is protecting them. If they're all innocent, why not prove it by releasing the documents in question? And as for 'shaking hands with a criminal', sarge, I seem to recall a picture of uncle rummy shaking hands with a former Iraqi dictator; so what's your point? (and please don't cut and paste my 'what's your point' and simply switch your handle with mine... again... it really lowers the level of your posts to the point of embarrassment).

Not to worry though, folks, this and many other things will come to light in the future, and this is only more proof that bush is the worst president in American history, and certainly among the top worst leaders the world has ever seen in this day and age.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan - "your scumbag in the white house"

Wow, these posts are really going downhill...

<strong>Moderator: Exactly. All readers, please lift the level of your posts.</strong>

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong,

It seems to me that our government did do wiretapping without telling anyone and only 'fessed up after it became known that was what they were doing, then pleaded exigent necessity and then got an ex post facto law passed to retroactively legalize what they did.

I agree with you that this is at least better than countries in which those who investigate cover-ups are killed or otherwise "disappeared". That isn't exactly setting a high standard though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So sarge by your reasoning this is alright.

Should we teach our children to behave like this as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the chilling effect that compliance with the committee’s subpoena would have on future White House deliberations

Mukasey means it would be horrible for the White House to have to conduct its business in an honest fashion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's missing from this string is an understanding of executive privilege, which like most privileges was created by court decisions. As reflected in those court decisions, the purpose of executive privilege is to protect the confidentiality of advice given to executive decision makers in the government so that those charged with providing such advice will give their full and candid views without fear such views may later be disclosed. However, as with all testimonial privileges, it can be deemed waived if it is not consistently asserted. By revealing to Fitzpatrick information that otherwise might have been covered by the privilege, without being compelled to do so pursuant to a grand jury subpoena, to the extent the information might have been protected by executive privilege from disclosure in a civil case, the President waived any such privilege.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's difficult to lift the level of discussion, when we're talking about a criminal who only continues to lead because he hides by execute privilidge.

One day, these books will be opened and I hope you republicans are still around to see the crimes you've so vehemently okayed the actions. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites