Comments on: Is the Obama White House Caving (Again) on Presidential Privileges?

By: lllphd

lllphd — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:27:44 +0000

it’s these complications and implications beyond the facts of the cases themselves that i think obama is exquisitely sensitive to. and only time will reveal to us what is going on here.

in any case, proceeding with great care makes tremendous sense.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:26:55 +0000

They have consistently and relentlessly said they do not want to delve into the past and want to move forward. Their nominees and leaders keep stating that at every turn, and their acts since taking office support that one hundred percent.

By: lllphd

lllphd — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:21:50 +0000

why?

why would you think that and why would they want that??

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:20:50 +0000

It is not the Republicans, it is Reid and Obama and Leahy. They control the flow; this has little, if anything, to do with the Goopers, don’t blame them. We discussed above, I really don’t think security clearances, at least for the top people are the issue in the least. This is on the Dem leadership, and it is not occurring by accident, they are gaming this to the disadvantage of accountability. Or so i suggest anyway.

By: lllphd

lllphd — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:16:49 +0000

my sense of this exactly. the crimes really must be pursued very very carefully.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:15:20 +0000

My commenat at 3 above was directed at the subpoenas issue; and, yes, in light of the completely public files and crucial issues, I did, and do, absolutely expect them to walk in and be ready to play.

By: lllphd

lllphd — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:07:40 +0000

i agree; i’ve been struck by those ’strong presidency’ voices, too. they seem to coincide with the grave threats of tourists and the ticking bomb scenarios.

By: lllphd

lllphd — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:01:53 +0000

duh. the repugs are all about gumming up the works. that much seems abundantly clear.

and i’m not sure how it works, but a job that requires security clearance may not allow you to even show up without it.

By: lllphd

lllphd — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:58:57 +0000

thank you for making my point, albeit with exceedingly greater eloquence.

By: lllphd

lllphd — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:57:22 +0000

or could craig’s comment have served to give rove and luskin a false sense of confidence?

i don’t read any commitment in there beyond an encouragement for everyone to come to the table. we all know who out there has not even bothered to come to the room, let alone the table; craig showed no interest in smacking these guys up side the head with the truth of their contempt.

that’s fine; there’s a lot to be said for giving parties in a negotiation some avenues of grace, without humiliation.

i know, that seems outrageous for the likes of rove and cheney and their ilk. but hey, recall that this is the very same argument cheney made against obama’s decision to close gitmo; “he’d rather read them their rights and be polite” and words to that effect.

yup; that’s who we are.