GAO rules Bush Admin Interference in Media Illegal

[Sherry Darling]

http://nytimes.com/2005/10/01/polit...&en=ed2345e1f9cc06db&ei=5094&partner=homepage


Questions
1. Can the Dems get their act together on this?
2. Will there be REAL accountability?
3. Is this impeacable?

 

[melon]

The answer to #3 is "no," because Congress is controlled by Republicans.

Melon

 

[U2democrat]

The question is when will the american people finally open their eyes and get fed up with the corruption of this administration.

 

[Se7en]

isn't any illegal act technicaly grounds for impeachment? all clinton did was lie about getting a bj. this seems a bit more serious. "covert propaganda?"

 

[Sherry Darling]

isn't any illegal act technicaly grounds for impeachment?

Well, yes, indeed.

Paging Reid and Dean....pick up the red courtesy phone please....

 

[Dreadsox]

I say impeach him, and like Clinton he will be found not guilty of an offense serious enough for removal.

 

[Sherry Darling]

I consider the government overtly, explicity, intentionally hiring a newsguy quite serious enough for impeachment AND removal. "High crimes and misdemeanors", no? It's abuse of WH power for the purposes of maintaining power, exactly as Nixon (though if I had to rank 'em, Nixon still takes the cake).

I'm a bit surprised by the lack of replies Is this a lack of interest? Not sure what to say? It's so obvious that he needs to go that it goes without saying?

 

[BonosSaint]

It is probably technically impeachable, but the House isn't going to impeach and the Senate isn't going to convict. I was furious at the Clinton impeachment and think impeachment should be so rare. Not a political/partisan think which I think the Senate realized in the Clinton impeachment trial. I think they knew the body would be stained and it would open up a myriad of impeachment proceedings in the future. I think Bush is pretty reprehensible, but I don't really think this particular case rises to the level of impeachment.

Answers to 1 and 2 : No and No. We have a weak opposition party.

 

[Dreadsox]

I consider the government overtly, explicity, intentionally hiring a newsguy quite serious enough for impeachment AND removal.

On the removal we disagree. Not even in the ballpark of NIxon.

 

[Jamila]

GAO - glad to see one part of our government is honest!

 

[verte76]

GAO - glad to see one part of our government is honest!

Isn't that the truth.............

 

[anitram]

I'm a bit surprised by the lack of replies Is this a lack of interest? Not sure what to say? It's so obvious that he needs to go that it goes without saying?

Probably because most people have been completely desensitized to the various incompetencies and dishonesty exhibited by members of this administration for 5 years that this is just another in a long line.

 

[Sherry Darling]

On the removal we disagree. Not even in the ballpark of NIxon.

Hi Dread!

I can agree that it's not in the league of Tricky Dick, but (and forgive my repeating myself here) what I understand is that the government made a decision to hire a "journalist" to promote propaganda. I'm curious why that isn't enough? What would be? Where's your "line"?

Thanks for the replies, all. Antriam, I hope to god you're wrong, but I don't think you are.

Clearly it's time to go shopping. for Retail Therapy.

 

[Irvine511]

Probably because most people have been completely desensitized to the various incompetencies and dishonesty exhibited by members of this administration for 5 years that this is just another in a long line.

or that bush benefits, immeasurably, from the soft bigotry of low expectations.

 

[Dreadsox]

Hi Dread!

I can agree that it's not in the league of Tricky Dick, but (and forgive my repeating myself here) what I understand is that the government made a decision to hire a "journalist" to promote propaganda. I'm curious why that isn't enough? What would be? Where's your "line"?

Thanks for the replies, all. Antriam, I hope to god you're wrong, but I don't think you are.

Clearly it's time to go shopping. for Retail Therapy.

Forgive me if I am wrong on my facts, but has there been any attempt to hide what they did. Were they acting out in the open the entire time? My understanding is that this was not some back room deal, hidden from the public. My understanding was that this was the administration believing they were acting within their legal rights.

If I get thet ime to do more research on this I shall.

Propaganda? The NCLB Propaganda? Is this the end of the universe?

 

[Dreadsox]

OK...Now within five minutes I am finding artiles that Bush was not happy that the DOE did this.

I may be retracting my impeach him comment.