[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Neocon Nuttery See other Neocon Nuttery Articles Title: Poor White House: Victimized by threat of subpoena Fear of subpoenas ‘crippling’ the White House? Posted December 24th, 2007 at 2:05 pm Share This | Spotlight | Permalink As she departs the White House, and steps down as Bush’s chief terrorism adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend stopped to tell the NYT how disappointed she is with the political climate in DC. Promoted to domestic security adviser in 2004, she became a loyalist and said she was leaving wearied by the acrimony that hangs over Mr. Bush’s last year in office. “I find it both offensive and crippling,” she said. “When both career people and political people are worried about getting subpoenaed, it’s hard to get a lot accomplished.” Oh, those poor, poor White House officials. If only Congress would go back to ignoring the administration’s scandalous, sometimes criminal, behavior, the president and his aides would find it much easier to go about their business without the fear of accountability. Apparently, we’re supposed to feel sorry for the whole bunch. But does the Bush gang really find all of this really “offensive and crippling”? What’s offensive about congressional oversight? For that matter, why is it that executive-branch officials, who presumably aren’t doing anything wrong, feel “crippled” by the fear that they may be asked to account for the decisions? It just sounds so ridiculous, I’m surprised a top White House official would even say this on the record. Besides, if the Bush gang really wants to talk about “offensive and crippling” subpoenas from Congress, let’s not forget how Republicans ran (.pdf) the House Oversight Committee in the 1990s. Before the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, congressional authority to issue subpoenas was viewed as a serious power to be exercised judiciously. From at least as far back as the McCarthy era in the 1950s to the Republican takeover in 1995, no Democratic committee chairman issued a subpoena without either consent from the minority or a committee vote. This long-standing tradition of restraint was abandoned, however, during the congressional investigations of the Clinton Administration. The Government Reform Committee is the primary investigative committee in the House of Representatives. During the Clinton Administration, the chairman of this Committee unilaterally issued over 1,000 subpoenas to investigate allegations of misconduct involving the Clinton Administration and the Democratic Party. The Committee issued 1,089 subpoenas during the six years that Dan Burton served as chairman from 1997 through 2002. During this period, 1,052 of the Committee’s subpoenas - 97% - targeted officials of the Clinton Administration and the Democratic Party; only 11 subpoenas related to allegations of Republican abuses. (emphasis added) Burton handed out subpoenas like candy. He subpoenaed 141 different Clintonites. He held hearings — for 10 days — on the Clintons’ Christmas card list. In one instance, Burton was so reckless, he subpoenaed the wrong man (looking for someone with a similar name). In another instance, Burton fired a bullet into a “head-like object” — reportedly a melon — in his backyard to test the theory that former White House counsel Vincent Foster was murdered (this from the man who is now warning against “sensational disclosures”). But Frances Fragos Townsend thinks it’s “offensive and crippling” for Congress to expect the White House to explain matters such as the politicization of the Justice Department and the destruction of CIA evidence of torture. It’s as if lawmakers have it in their heads that Congress is a co-equal branch of government with oversight responsibilities. The nerve. Discussion What do you think? Leave a comment. Alternatively, write a post on your own weblog; this blog accepts trackbacks. 9 Comments 1. On December 24th, 2007 at 2:28 pm, 1st Republic 14th Star said: Jesus, isn’t a central tenet of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism that if you’re not guilty, you should have no problem with someone secretly looking into your phone calls, e-mails, the books you buy and borrow, etc.? Well, then I have to ask — if Townsend and her fellow “loyal Bushies” have done nothing wrong, then why do they fear oversight? In a trial, Townsend’s words and actions would be considered “consciousness of guilt” and could be used to demonstrate that she had actually committed a criminal act. 2. On December 24th, 2007 at 2:38 pm, bjobotts said: Just like mobsters worry about getting subpoenaed, it’s a legitimate fear when you are complicit in corruption. “Hey, I was just doin’ what the boss ordered.” Townsend is such a wretched human being for her defense of torture. No place in government for a grand inquisitor spokeswomen. You’re right . Her statements were outlandish for a departing administration employee. “How can we do our jobs if we have to be worried about being scrutinized with intruding oversight? I think it comes from years of waking up to sex and hearing, “Just close your eyes and go back to sleep”. Don’t let the door hit you in the butt Frances. The GOP spent millions and hundreds of hours and couldn’t find anything on Clinton but when corruption is running rampant in this administration they complain if someone even dares to point it out. That’s why they deserve no respect…they have no integrity and are hypocritical to the core. 3. On December 24th, 2007 at 2:47 pm, jen flowers said: It is so inconvenient following the law. 4. On December 24th, 2007 at 2:52 pm, Jim said: The underlying assumption here is that Congress has no duty of oversight w/r/t the Executive branch. Has Ms Townsend studied American Government at the middle school level or higher? It is very difficult to take Fran Townsend seriously when considering her farewell letter to GW Bush. “In 1937, the playwright Maxwell Anderson wrote of President George Washington: There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, til all men walk on higher ground in their lifetime.” “Mr. President, you are such man.” In all seriousness, such fawning gush would be merely annoying coming from a political flack (Mary Matalin or Josh Bolten), but that a career professional could describe Bush in those terms, that said career professional played a signficant role in this country’s national security policy is frightening. I believe Townsend was Richard Clarke’s deputy. I’ve never heard him comment on her tenure. I’d be curious to hear what he has to say. 5. On December 24th, 2007 at 2:58 pm, dolphy said: Awwww…. Let’s all chip in & buy her a box of tissues. This is touching. 6. On December 24th, 2007 at 3:35 pm, rege said: Out of curiosity, how many Bush administration officials has actually responded to a subpoena which they have received? 7. On December 24th, 2007 at 4:53 pm, andy phx said: I can’t believe that bjobotts referred to Townsend as a “human being”. Can scum really be considered a human being? I think ‘human waste’ is more appropriate. 8. On December 24th, 2007 at 5:06 pm, Anne said: More to the point of how many subpoenas were issued from 1997 to 2002, which is eye-popping in itself, is how many were ignored. I haven’t done the research on that one, but I think the answer is “none.” Is that because all of the people under subpoena had nothing to hide, or knew they were innocent of whatever role was being ascribed to them? Probably not entirely, although I think it is safe to say that if there was a Congress bent on crippling, it was Dan Burton’s Congress. Bill Clinton, as with many presidents before him, understood that Congress had a right to get answers to its questions, that it had a constituionally mandated oversight responsibility, and that being “co-equal” really did mean “on equal footing.” This president believes no such thing. He believes he stands above all, and if there is any crippling going on, it’s obvious that it is the president who is doing it - not the Congress. Frances Townsend is another example of someone who has been in the Bush Bubble for so long, she actually believes the things she says. Can’t wait for the rest of them to hit the road.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: Mekons4 (#0)
“I find it both offensive and crippling,” she said. “When both career people and political people are worried about getting subpoenaed, it’s hard to get a lot accomplished.” Too funny.
#2. To: robin (#1)
I think it is sad. Even more I find it offensive. I am offended that they are not already on trial for War Crimes. I am offended that the whole damn bunch of criminals are not already in Orange Jump Suits.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||