No criminal charges in Bush-era U.S. attorney firings By James Vicini WASHINGTON | Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:26pm EDT Insufficient evidence? no evidence, Mr. Conyers, Democrat Michigan.
Well no they were not cleared. This is part of the article mr. buffalo roam did not want you to see: Weich said there was insufficient evidence that Domenici, other New Mexico Republicans, people in the White House or anyone at the Justice Department had attempted to influence Iglesias. Prosecutors also determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Gonzales, his chief of staff or other Justice Department officials obstructed justice or lied to Congress or to investigators House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan, said, "It is clear that Ms. Dannehy's determination is not an exoneration of Bush officials in the U.S. attorney matter." "There is no dispute that these firings were totally improper and that misleading testimony was given to Congress in an effort to cover them up," he said in a statement http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66K6M720100721?type=politicsNews
Lack of evidence is not proof of the pudding, or something like that. OJ was also cleared of murdering 2 people, there you go....
I think it is probable that it is more likely that the George II administration was very good at covering things up, vanishing emails and the like. And we all know how helpful Carl Rove was, taking cover under Presidential Privilage.
Or, it could also possibly mean that, despite the fact that Bush was a horrible president, he didn't commit all the crimes leftist accuse him of. A bad administration is sometimes just a bad administration. ~String
It's only just so easy to accuse those we hate with any number of heinous crimes. And it's socially acceptable. "Look, I read that Bush raped a little girl when he was 16 years old!" Say that in any leftist crowd and see if any of them says, "Wait. That's a bit harsh. Bush is [insert disparaging phrase here], but he's no child rapist." They won't. And in fact, any of them who does, will be labeled a traitor. Bush sucked. No need to enhance that fact with pointless lies and unsupported accusations. He's gone, children. You can come out an play. He won't hurt you anymore. ~String
Try calling george II a socialist in a Republican, conservative, Tea Partier crowd Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Non sequitur. I'm not defending political ideologues and you know that. Right-wingery is. . . well, I don't even need to tell you. But the point is, that it's in vogue to say the most horrible thing possible about the Bush administration. Stick with the facts or you're no better than the bull-shit spewing fringe idiots out there who parrot the same tired old lines over and over. ~String
We already know their crimes, they admitted some of them, torturing prisoners, basing their invasion of Iraq on non-existent weapons, wiretapping without warrants. They also outed a CIA agent for political reasons.
Domenici announced on October 4, 2007 his decision not to seek re-election to the Senate in 2008 for health reasons, in particular frontotemporal lobar degeneration. gee. i don't recall
I didn't know about the rape accusation. Imagine how much fun the left could have had with that issue if they had a smut spewing operation like Republicans have (e.g. Vince Foster). http://www.opednews.com/thoreau1103bush_rape_suicide.htm Yes, I will agree with you stick with the facts. If facts no longer matter, we are doomed. Unfortunately throwing poop has worked well for conservatives, Republicans, Tea Partiers, et al. So now the question is should the non Republicans, Tea Partiers, et al respond in kind with more poop? It can be a hard arguement to make given how well Republicans, Tea Partiers, conservatives have done smearing around fake poop.
No, it couldn't. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! He was actually smarter than people believed him to be. I think his remark to the Argentinian (Mexican?) president about wars was spot on...
Wiretappings that were authorized by the Congress. Torture, well, you'll have a very hard legal sell to get that proven. For better or worse, there is a significant portion of your government that thinks that waterboarding doesn't amount to torture. Legally, you'll never see a conviction. ~String