Comments on: Those Damned Precedents… http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/ America's favorite blog Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:35:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11 by: Tim H. http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4483 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4483 It probably is all about a Constitutional issue. It's about that amendment between the fourth and the sixth. It probably is all about a Constitutional issue. It’s about that amendment between the fourth and the sixth.

]]> by: pete http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4484 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4484 adam, you are real darn good at pointing out the reasons why things bother me. ""It's a shame, but we have to settle for her making the case on the news, on talk shows, in editorials, and at public appearances. So the real shame about that is that Condi doesn't get to take an oath, which is something she'd really, really love to do." that's it! that's it right there! there's something about satire that reveals honest truth, and there's something about the way you do satire... adam, you are real darn good at pointing out the reasons why things bother me.
“”It’s a shame, but we have to settle for her making the case on the news, on talk shows, in editorials, and at public appearances. So the real shame about that is that Condi doesn’t get to take an oath, which is something she’d really, really love to do.”
that’s it! that’s it right there!

there’s something about satire that reveals honest truth, and there’s something about the way you do satire…

]]> by: Bob http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4485 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4485 <i>It probably is all about a Constitutional issue. It's about that amendment between the fourth and the sixth.</i> OK. Have her appear before the commission and take the fifth. That ought to make a good MoveOn ad. It probably is all about a Constitutional issue. It’s about that amendment between the fourth and the sixth.

OK. Have her appear before the commission and take the fifth. That ought to make a good MoveOn ad.

]]> by: Kate http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4486 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4486 I love this. Here is the logic we're dealing with: 1) We made up a rule 2) The rule has been around for a while 3) It is self imposed 4) There is a reason why we should break the rule 5) The reason will not benefit us, it can only harm us. 6) Therefore, even though there is no reason not to break the rule, which is self-imposed, we will not break it because, essentially, we don't want to. And, typical of this administration, they are lying about it now because they don't want people to think the rule is self-imposed. And we're running neck and neck with this administration? Grrrrr.... I love this. Here is the logic we’re dealing with:

1) We made up a rule
2) The rule has been around for a while
3) It is self imposed
4) There is a reason why we should break the rule
5) The reason will not benefit us, it can only harm us.
6) Therefore, even though there is no reason not to break the rule, which is self-imposed, we will not break it because, essentially, we don’t want to.

And, typical of this administration, they are lying about it now because they don’t want people to think the rule is self-imposed.

And we’re running neck and neck with this administration?

Grrrrr….

]]> by: Murray http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4487 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4487 Republicans may be evil but they're not stupid. (OK, other than W). They know what can happen if the other side forces you into testifying under oath. They got to impeach Clinton over a bj for God's sake. Condi will testify only when the damage to W is worse for holding out, than for going before congress. These are their principles. Republicans may be evil but they’re not stupid. (OK, other than W). They know what can happen if the other side forces you into testifying under oath. They got to impeach Clinton over a bj for God’s sake.

Condi will testify only when the damage to W is worse for holding out, than for going before congress. These are their principles.

]]> by: Allan B http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4488 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4488 I agree completely Murray, and would add that this is W's decision to make. He can waive executive privilege at any time and allow Condi to testify. So the heat should be on Bush, not Rice. Also, some one please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Ken Starr go to court to compel agents on Clinton's Secret Service detail to testify about what they heard and saw while in Clinton's presence? If so then why not turn the tables and subpoena W's agents? Of course I say that facetiously, as that struck me at the time as a particularly bad and dangerous idea. I agree completely Murray, and would add that this is W’s decision to make. He can waive executive privilege at any time and allow Condi to testify. So the heat should be on Bush, not Rice.

Also, some one please correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Ken Starr go to court to compel agents on Clinton’s Secret Service detail to testify about what they heard and saw while in Clinton’s presence? If so then why not turn the tables and subpoena W’s agents? Of course I say that facetiously, as that struck me at the time as a particularly bad and dangerous idea.

]]> by: Kerry http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4489 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4489 Pete, you are so right on about the best part of Adam's piece. Condi Rice is very religious and I'm sure that she would feel compelled to tell the truth under oath. Kate, nice summation. Dammit! If only we could catch Bush getting a BJ. Pete, you are so right on about the best part of Adam’s piece. Condi Rice is very religious and I’m sure that she would feel compelled to tell the truth under oath.

Kate, nice summation.

Dammit! If only we could catch Bush getting a BJ.

]]> by: Kyle http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4490 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4490 Maybe I'm missing something here, but didn't Bush sign the bill that created the "independent” commission? Isn’t the commission itself independent and separate from congress? Ms. Rice would therefore NOT be testifying before congress. Maybe I’m missing something here, but didn’t Bush sign the bill that created the “independent” commission? Isn’t the commission itself independent and separate from congress? Ms. Rice would therefore NOT be testifying before congress.

]]> by: Mary http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4491 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4491 Look, y'all. Shrub has made up his mind. Would y'all stop throwing facts around? It is really confusing!!! Look, y’all. Shrub has made up his mind. Would y’all stop throwing facts around? It is really confusing!!!

]]> by: amazilia2 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4492 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/03/29/those-damned-precedents/#comment-4492 Well, they've apparentely coached her sufficiently to lie under oath without giving herself away because, as I'm sure you've all heard, SHE'S GOING TO DO IT! (Testify, the lying part goes without saying.) By the way, what about that rather large principle that said Congress declares war, not the White House resident? Well, they’ve apparentely coached her sufficiently to lie under oath without giving herself away because, as I’m sure you’ve all heard, SHE’S GOING TO DO IT! (Testify, the lying part goes without saying.)

By the way, what about that rather large principle that said Congress declares war, not the White House resident?

]]>