No surprise here. (1 Viewer)

[DadsDream]

Oh, and Waxman. I stand by my assessment of his situation above in Post #112.

 

[RebSaint]

Not you. Reuters.

Completely illogical.

How is it a hit piece on Bush? By not mentioning impeachment? How would mentioning impeachment make it more of an objective analysis? The article stuck with the important facts surrounding the issue. By mentioning impeachment, it would have arguably made the article really seem like a hatchet job. Your attempting to discredit the article because it didn't mention impeachment? Again, its unknown who exactly is behind the deletion of these e-mails--which has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush or impeachment.

Strawman to paint this issue as only a partisan witchhunt.

If the article mentioned impeachment, you'd call it a political witchunt, the article didn't mention impeachment, and your doing the same thing.

 

[DadsDream]

Completely illogical.

How is it a hit piece on Bush? By not mentioning impeachment? How would mentioning impeachment make it more of an objective analysis? The article stuck with the important facts surrounding the issue. By mentioning impeachment, it would have arguably made the article really seem like a hatchet job. Your attempting to discredit the article because it didn't mention impeachment? Again, its unknown who exactly is behind the deletion of these e-mails--which has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush or impeachment.

Strawman to paint this issue as only a partisan witchhunt.

If the article mentioned impeachment, you'd call it a political witchunt, the article didn't mention impeachment, and your doing the same thing.

The article totally omits Waxman's background on this story, which I outlined above in Post 112 and which is vividly illustrated in the video on the previous page.

Oh, Waxman also totally shot himself in the foot last week, attacking private veterans' charities, alleging financial mismanagement.

Imagine...a California congressman pointing a finger and accusing private organizations of financial mismanagement when it comes to veterans.

So, you see, "consider the source" in the case of the Reuters article is highly appropriate. The stock in Waxman as a source has taken a severe hit since Pelosi & Co. came to town.

 

[RebSaint]

The article totally omits Waxman's background on this story,

Which doesn't at all make it a Bush hit piece. Omitting Waxman's background doesn't make it a hit piece on Bush. That's your misinterpretation and conflation of the article's contents and attempt to make this issue purely partisan, which it isn't.

Impeachment wasn't mentioned because it isn't going to happen politically and it's off the table and there's no evidence that Bush personally has broken the law--those in his administration--well, that's another issue altogether, which I've mentioned for the thousandth time.

You've made this issue all about Waxman, Bush, and impeachment, which the Reuters article doesn't even do, so your criticizing the article for being about something completely different than it was intended to be.

The article was about the possibility that the administration is running afoul of the federal law which Spam posted in this thread. You took Waxman's role in this issue and made it out to be completely about impeachment, which was your choice, despite the fact that the article didn't even mention it.

Which of course is all irrelevant from my vantage point--even Waxman's supposed motivations for the possibility of the administration behaving in a manner which runs afoul to federal law regarding public disclosure of official Executive Branch communications.

 

[champ76]

So this whole thread is a strawman? Really? Did I mention impeachment? No. You brought it up.

Well, actually, your first comment on the article was: "This bunch can't get out of the White House fast enough." May not be impeachment, but the sentiment is the same.

 

[RebSaint]

Well, actually, your first comment on the article was: "This bunch can't get out of the White House fast enough." May not be impeachment, but the sentiment is the same.

No it isn't. That's your reading what you want into my intent of the post. I never even mentioned impeachment until DD brought it up. I never began the thread intending to support or even debate a Bush impeachment. So no, actually it isn't the same sentiment.

But your right, this bunch can't get out of the White House fast enough for me. I've had it with Bush and the the whole lot of them--but not impeachment. But if there's an investigation and I think that investigation's finding warrant impeachment, damn skippy I'd be behind it, but we're not even remotely close to even ponder it or debate it, because there's no real evidence that Bush committed a crime--those in his administration, maybe.

It's funny that this thread is now all about a Bush impeachment.

 

[DadsDream]

Which doesn't at all make it a Bush hit piece. Omitting Waxman's background doesn't make it a hit piece on Bush. That's your misinterpretation and conflation of the article's contents and attempt to make this issue purely partisan, which it isn't.

Waxman = Impeachment.

Watch the vid on the previous page. Review Post 112 above.

Impeachment wasn't mentioned because it isn't going to happen politically and it's off the table and there's no evidence that Bush personally has broken the law--those in his administration--well, that's another issue altogether, which I've mentioned for the thousandth time.

You've made this issue all about Waxman, Bush, and impeachment, which the Reuters article doesn't even do, so your criticizing the article for being about something completely different than it was intended to be.

Waxman seeking to get the emails open was part of his activities as chairman of the House Reform and Government Oversight Committee. The Plame case was the means to that end. The emails are associated with the Plame case.

He was given a mission to find the dirt and get an impeachment.

He didn't get it. Pelosi took impeachment off the table. Now, he's getting whatever he can.

The article was about the possibility that the administration is running afoul of the federal law which Spam posted in this thread. You took Waxman's role in this issue and made it out to be completely about impeachment, which was your choice, despite the fact that the article didn't even mention it.

Waxman was appointed as chairman of the House Reform and Government Oversight Committee to get the dirt to impeach Bush and or Cheney.

That's unquestioned by anybody I know of except for one certain poster on SR.com's EE Board.

Of course, Reuters just chooses to omit and ignore Waxman's original purpose completely.

Which of course is all irrelevant from my vantage point--even Waxman's supposed motivations for the possibility of the administration behaving in a manner which runs afoul to federal law regarding public disclosure of official Executive Branch communications.

You really didn't watch the vid on the previous page, did you? The man openly states that impeachment is what he really wants, but he can't get it. :dunno:

 

[champ76]

But your right, this bunch can't get out of the White House fast enough for me. I've had it with Bush and the the whole lot of them--but not impeachment. But if there's an investigation and I think that investigation's finding warrant impeachment, damn skippy I'd be behind it, but we're not even remotely close to even ponder it or debate it, because there's no real evidence that Bush committed a crime--those in his administration, maybe.

Now, this ought to be interesting, lol:

"VARIETY: Oliver Stone to make film about George W. Bush. Josh Brolin to star... Developing..."

http://www.drudgereport.com/

 

[DadsDream]

I'm gonna lay on the couch and watch the playoff game!

 

[RebSaint]

The emails are associated with the Plame case.

Not all of them are associated with the Plame case. You obviously want to discuss impeachment and Waxman.

One. more. time. for clarification. If Bush was behind covering anything up, or facilitating the breaking of the law which Spam cited, I think he's perfectly within his right to call for impeachment.

Maybe impeachment should be on the table. Back to the facts of the case.

Fact #1--The administration maybe running afoul of the law which requires all communications to be public for full disclosure
Fact #2--These "missing" or deleted e-mails are specifically related to highly sensitive information regarding the CIA leaks, Iraq's pre-war intelligence, etc.
Fact #3--There is a law which clearly requires the administration to correctly preserve this electronic information, information which is supposedly "missing" or "lost," or the administration is invoking federal privilege, where it has no right to.

I really don't see anything which gets back to Bush, but I don't know.

You don't find anything suspicious or anything to raise a cause for concern here because I think you see this issue from either a Bush-can-do-no wrong perspective or through a partisan lens. Hence, why you've made this discussion all about Waxman's motives or impeachment. You've completely gone away from what the article pointed out, the law, and even the possibility that there's actually something legitimately wrong by the administration's behavior.

I think a further investigation is necessary, because it appears that the administration has something to hide because most of these e-mails contain information about the Plame case, pre-war intelligence manipulation and misinterpretation. If there's a coverup or the law violated, I want those in the administration to pay the price. They aren't above the law, and if it includes Bush so be it.

Just because there are some who have partisan goals by looking more into it is not a reason to dismiss this issue as just a partisan witchunt or business as usual in Washington. Your essentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.

You only see this issue as a means to an end for impeachment, and conveniently ignore the fact that there might be a legitimate cover-up or illegal activities within the Bush administration itself. The choice is not to impeach or not impeach Bush, as you assume.