Bush Administration Cleared in Firings

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Buffalo Roam, Jul 22, 2010.

  1. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Yes Congress did, they passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and set the rules.

    ice, here are the facts as reported after a 2 year investigation;

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/21/politics/main6699547.shtml

    In 2008, the Justice Department assigned Nora Dannehy, a career prosecutor from Connecticut with a history of rooting out government wrongdoing, to investigate the firings.

    In particular, she looked into whether the firing of New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias and whether then-Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., or others should be prosecuted for the dismissal or for lying to Congress about it.

    "Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias," the Justice Department said in a letter to lawmakers Wednesday. "The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."

    Prosecutors also said there was insufficient evidence to charge someone with lying to Congress or investigators...............

    ............Dannehy faulted the Justice Department for firing Iglesias without even bothering to figure out whether such complaints were true. That indicated "an undue sensitivity to politics on the part of DOJ officials who should answer not to partisan politics but to principles of fairness and justice," the Justice Department wrote in its letter.

    But that was not a crime, and was not an effort to influence prosecutions, the letter said.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    What we need is an admendement to the Constitution. Short of that, I don't think there is any fixing of Washington.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Yeah! Get an amendment which says something to the effect of any and all previous amendments can be violated by Congress whenever they get enough votes to pass legislation.

    At least we could stop complaining about violating the Constitution.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You have a point, but I was thinking more along the lines of public funding of elections campaigns, preventing elected officials and their families from accepting all gifts from lobbyists including but not limited to travel perks/junkets; anything of value; and jobs before, during or aftter public service and the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine.
     
  8. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Easiest way to fix Washington, end the retirements of elected officals for being in office.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Ah right, and how do you figure that will make them more inclined to act in the interests of the nation versus the special interests? Ending retirements for elected public officials just makes them more likely to be corrupted by any johnny with money coming down the street.
     
  10. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Don't know if it will, but it will make it impossible for them to stay in Washington for a life time, our Founding Fathers never intended for politics to become a career, or that individuals spend their whole lives in government.

    And they aren't corrupted by johnny with money coming down the street now? Yes the shell games the Federals in Washington play with money is legendary.

    A few addendum to the point, make their pay come only from their Home State, or District, and that it can only receive a pay raised by a 2/3 majority of the voters in that State or District, and that they can't accept any donations for anyone or anything outside the limits of their districts, and every single penny must be reported.

    That should effectively break up the little power cliques of Washington.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    We have plenty of laws.

    For example, there's already a law that says officials have to keep records, and that prosecutors can subpoena these officials and their records, and that failure to produce oneself and the records when subpoenaed is a crime.

    So this little charade is not for lack of alternatives and power. The Justice Dept firings could have been investigated in reality, if the current administration wanted to do that.

    The wiretapping program, the Halliburton shitpile, the torture prison system, the regulatory agency corruption, the military contracting, the accounting and laundering scandal in Iraq, the outing of Plame, the WMD intel rigging, the fate of the TARP funds, the CIA drug llinks, the Iranian dealings from Reagan through Cheney, all could have been investigated in reality. It's not a pipe dream of some alternative universe - it's the way things could be done, directly and by executive branch mandate, starting tomorrow.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2010
  12. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Well ice? why are Obama and the democrats still awarding Halliburton no bid contracts?

    We still have GITMO with us, and do you know for sure that renditions have now ended?

    The Democrats in Congress had the same intelligence information when they insisted on voting for the Use of Military Force Iraq, and they loudly agreed with Georges assessment before George became President, it was only after when it became politically expedient, did they change their political tune.

    Yes, Democrat after Democrat, from President Clinton on down saw the threat of WMD in Iraq.

    Yes ice, who needs to be investigated under your broad brush? both sides, your precious democrats included.

    --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
    -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
    -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
    -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
    -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
    -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
    -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
    -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
    -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002



    http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
    --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
    -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
    -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
    -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
    -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
    -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
    -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    With all due respect Ice, I think you are missing the forrest for the trees. You are citing abuses of power and not corruption. There is a difference. Abuses of power are only scene when you have a corrupt political infrastructure.

    A Cheney or george II could never achieve high office if we had a better infrastructure. It we have good campaign finance laws, you would not see the abuses that gave george II the office of presidency in 2000.

    We need to take special interest money out of the political system. If anything the election of george II showed us money can buy you anything, including the POTUS.

    We need to stop the corrupting influences on our elected officials and most of those influencing forces are perfectly legal under our current set up. There is nothing illegal in excongressmen going to work as lobbyists (e.g. the congressmen instrumental in passing Medicare Reform of 2003 with all of its no bid requirements accepting multimillion dollar appointments as lobbyists for the drug industry after passage of the bill).
     
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You have proof of same? If so, now is the time to show it.

    We still have GITMO because of two things...george II screwups in handling the legal cases and Republican fear mongering preventing the moving of prisoners to regular prisons.

    Being a Republican, this may be a suprise to you. But the president is not a dictator. He must work with in the law, he cannot make it up as george II did.
    And they were lied to by george II and his merry band of Republicans in the White House. So call them gulible but not criminal.
    Now here is the thing, george II had access to more information that Clinton did not which clearly indicated that Saddam did not have WMD. And his administration actively persecuted officials who disagreed and knew better.

    Boy you spend a lot of time putting together a bunch of chaff that really has no merrit. But that is really all you have so you post it. The bottom line is that george II had more information and more current information than any of the people you cited here. And george II had information that Saddam had no WMD at the time the official decision was made to invade Iraq. None of the other individuals you referenced had that information.
     
  15. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    joe the only chaff dispensed around here is you.

    Well, joe, eat crow;

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...y-work-as-u-s-alleges-kickbacks-update1-.html

    KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks (Update1)
    May 06, 2010, 11:27 AM EDT
    By Tony Capaccio

    May 6 (Bloomberg) -- KBR Inc. was selected for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, the Army said.

    (Now lets see, KBR is the old Brown and Root and Kellogg companies, and guess who bought them out? Haliburton)

    But then doesn't this apply to all no bids since Obama campaigned on the evil of no bid, so what happening here? Training Lawyers?

    White House directed a $25 million no-bid contract to Checchi and ...
    Jan 25, 2010 ... Full story: Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid ... is being purchased and will soon become a subsidiary of Halliburton. ... that I haven't worked harder to be informed on the issues. ... for revenue illegally in 2009 and all of this is about criminal enterprises and not about profits. ...

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/25/w...d-contract-to-checchi-company-consulting-inc/

    Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

    The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.

    With a little research, you can see thta Obama hasn't ended no bid, to Haliburton, it's subsidearies, or Obamas own favorite campaign doners.

    Obama the Chicago business as usual, no bid, kickback, political cronyism as usual.
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    No I won't be eating any crow today. Let's look at the rest of the Business Week article you referenced....the part you did not put in your post.


    Appropriate Safeguards’

    The Army has “reviewed the government’s notice to intervene” in the whistleblower lawsuit, Army spokesman Dan Carlson said. “We feel we have appropriate safeguards in place” to protect the government’s interests.

    The no-bid work order is unusual because the Army, at the insistence of Congress, has since April 2008 put all logistics orders to bid, pitting KBR against Falls Church, Virginia-based DynCorp International Inc. and Irving, Texas-based Fluor Corp.
    The Army didn’t put this work out for bids because U.S. commanders in Iraq advised against it, saying that enlisting a new company would be too disruptive as the U.S withdraws, Army program director Lee Thompson said in an interview before the Justice Department action was announced.

    So this "no bid" contract was an exception and the administration did it based on a request by the Department of the Army as the Army felt changing contractors would be too disruptive.

    And your own article shows that Democrats have put an end to all of the abusive no bid contracts placed under Republican rule and made contracting more competitve.
     
  17. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    joe, no this wasn't a exception;

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/jul/millions-wasted-no-bid-contracts

    Millions Wasted On No-Bid Contracts
    ViewDiscussion.Last Updated: Thu, 08/06/2009 - 3:12pm
    Barack Obama promised to save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars annually by limiting no-bid government contracts yet his administration has so far awarded more than $543 million in federal deals without competition.

    The money has come from Obama’s prized $787 billion stimulus program with a big chunk of the no-bid deals going to military projects. According to a news analysis, the Department of Defense has awarded hundreds of no-bid contracts for base repairs, costing U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars more than when companies compete for the coveted deals.

    The Pentagon has so far spent more than one-fourth—around $242 million—of its stimulus funds on no-bid contracts for construction and repairs and it has represented a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. The agency saves more than triple the money when companies compete, according to the news report, which reveals that competitively bid work saved the government $34 million.

    The analysis includes specific examples of competitive military contracts versus those awarded with no competition. In all cases, the government saved substantial amounts when the bids were open to competition rather than awarded to firms without essentially shopping around.

    It was just a few months ago that Obama vowed to severely limit this wasteful method of doing business by overhauling the entire system to assure competition drives down costs. “The days of giving government contractors a blank check are over,” the commander-in-chief proudly proclaimed, promising to save taxpayers as much as $40 billion a year.


    http://industry.bnet.com/government...ervice-tatum-sole-source-contracting-anthrax/

    In theory, this should only happen when the work is urgent, the cost is low and the number of companies able to meet the requirements is limited. In fact, sole-source decisions often lead to protests, investigations, bad publicity and sometimes criminal cases.

    Take, for example, the U.S. Postal Service’s award of a Web site contract to Tatum LLC.In theory, this should only happen when the work is urgent, the cost is low and the number of companies able to meet the requirements is limited. In fact, sole-source decisions often lead to protests, investigations, bad publicity and sometimes criminal cases. Take, for example, the U.S. Postal Service’s award of a Web site contract to Tatum LLC.
    In theory, this should only happen when the work is urgent, the cost is low and the number of companies able to meet the requirements is limited. In fact, sole-source decisions often lead to protests, investigations, bad publicity and sometimes criminal cases. Take, for example, the U.S. Postal Service’s award of a Web site contract to Tatum LLC.
    ( http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20100318/DEPARTMENTS02/3180301/1034/IT04 )

    Murtha's nephew gains no-bid contracts - UPI.com
    May 5, 2009 ... A nephew of US Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., has received millions of dollars in ... Murtha's nephew gains no-bid contracts. Published: May 5, 2009 at 8:11 AM ... the military's Critical Reagents Program and a $2 million contract to provide ... 2010 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ...

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/05/Murthas-nephew-gains-no-bid-contracts/UPI-67821241525517/ - 66k -

    So joe, same cess pooll different favorites.
     
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    True we have a lot of laws that are not enforced or enforced well. But a lot of the shenanigans are legal. And I will give you one off the top of my head, everyone except congress is prohibited from trading stocks based on inside (non public) information. So they do, and they make a lot of money as a result.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    So you don't know what you are talking about and don't read your own references. In your first reference (DOD contract) it clearly said the no bid contract was an exception. Do I need to point you to the dictionary to look up the meaning of hte word "exception". And it clearly stated that the exception was made at the request of the Army to prevent interuption of vital services for military members.

    The other references you cited in your last posting were ambigious...meaning not very specific and refering to contracts that were placed in early 2009 at the time or shortly after Obama assumed the office if president.

    You know when you have an organization the size of the US federal government, it does not turn around on a dime. It takes time to implement policies. If he came in and immediately put in a no bid restriction on everything, some of our boys and girls in Afganistan or Iraq might wind up without food and medicine. It takes time to implement change. Something you like to forget when it comes to Democrats.

    And some of your references were opinion pieces from right wing whacko think tanks. Hardly objective in any sense of the word. The one about USPS written in 2010 referenced a contract that was entered into in early 2009 shortly after Obama entered office.

    The unfortunate fact for you is that the Obama administration is cracking down on the fiscal abuses of the former Republican adminstration.
     
  20. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    These threads are like fly-paper. Mention Bush and the usuals come running, foam all about their mouth, to spit and spew and shake their fists...
     
  21. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    please stop trolling, troll
     
  22. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    joe, read all the citations, no bids are still business as usual, as usual you are not even interested in the actual facts.

    Here is another no bid;

    Pentagon Confirms It Gave $1.4 Billion in No-Bid Fuel Contracts to ...
    Apr 28, 2010 ... The contracts, involving delivery of aviation fuel to U.S.-run air bases in ... April 28, 2010 — Over the past week Minacorp has been in close contact with the U.S. Government and the Interim Government of Kyrgyzstan to ...

    http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/decla...d-fuel-contracts-to-mysterious-companies.html -

    Yes joe, from on eof your favorite site:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/30/end-no-bid-contracts-above-25000/

    Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 30:

    "Will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid."


    No sign of action
    Updated: Wednesday, January 6th, 2010 | By Wes Allison

    It was the political equivalent of Barack Obama's eyes being too big for his stomach.

    Obama's campaign pledge to require competition for all contracts over $25,000 sure sounded good, but even the most ardent watchdogs say it would be all but impossible.

    Indeed, since Obama took office, none of the instructions from the White House's Office of Management and Budget -- which serves as the administration's controller -- has put any limits on the value of no-bid contracts. The guidance from the president and OMB appears to acknowledge that federal agencies may not always bid a project competitively, and instead has encouraged managers to do more to increase competition among contractors.

    There is a paper trail:

    In a memo March 4, 2009, President Obama ordered the OMB to develop rules to "govern the appropriate use and oversight of sole-source and other types of noncompetitive contracts and to maximize the use of full and open competition and other competitive procurement processes." But no mention of any $25,000 rule.

    The OMB followed up with a July 29, 2009, memo ordering agencies to cut by 10 percent the total dollars awarded via three types of so-called "risky" contracts, including no-bid or single-bid contracts. Again, nothing on a $25,000 rule.

    Then, on Oct. 27, 2009, the OMB's Office of Federal Procurement issued guidelines for agencies that asked procurement officers to find more ways to use competitive contracts. But it didn't mention the $25,000 rule that candidate Obama had promised either.
    .................

    ..........Progress? Watchdogs such as the Project on Government Oversight say yes. But that's still not fulfilling Obama's pledge to require competitive bidding for all contracts over $25,000. So we rate this one a Promise Broken.


    But No Bids are still business as usual under Obama.
     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Here is the promise, to improve the contracting process.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/432/cut-federal-contracts/

    If Obama promised to end no bid contracts for contracts greater than 25k he was naive in understanding the magnitude of the problem and what it would take to fix the problem.

    As I previously pointed out to you a no bid contract of greater than 25k was awarded to a contractor in Afganistan at the request of the Army. The Army is HEAVILY dependent on contractors. So any reform of the contracting process is going to take time.

    I suppose you are advocating that President Obama should let are troops starve or be ill supplied? Unfortunately, the ARMY is adicted to contractors and as long as the Army is deployed there will be a need for emergency contracting.
     

Share This Page