The White House has utter contempt for the average American. They believe you have no brain and will swallow the swill Dana Perino and George W. Bush regularly dish out. But yesterday they made a most distasteful stew.
The rule of law, cited by President Bush in Katrina's aftermath via his "zero tolerance" admonishment, does not apply to the White House or corporations breaking the law in conjunction with "his orders". When President Bush was inaugurated he promised to run an ethical administration, "to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government as we serve the American people."
Everyone who enters into public service for the United States has a duty to the American people to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government.
Fast forward seven years to find his Press Secretary, whining about unfair treatment by Congress, trying to compel testimony on an issue of concern, the firing of numerous state Attorney Generals. Recall Alberto Gonzales, the government's Justice Chief who couldn't recall virtually anything on the witness stand? He must've been hanging out too long around the tattered purple couch in the White House basement. And what was in that smoke that gave Alberto fuzzy memories? Whatever it was, it made Dana bitchy. Consider her words in her public whining:
This action is unprecedented, and it is outrageous. It is also an incredible waste of time – (Dis)
The absurdity and unfairness of the vote, arbitrarily designated Mr. Bolten -- in his official, not personal, capacity -- as the “Custodian of Records” for documents (Whine)
This is as a blatant sop to the far left and shameful behavior by House Democrats. (Liberal, commie, pinko, tin foil hat wearing)
It is astonishing and deeply troubling that after months of delay on passing a bill that will help our intelligence professionals monitor foreign terrorists who want to kill Americans, the House has instead turned its attention to the silly, pointless, and unjust act of approving these contempt resolutions. (Look over there! Danger Will Robinson!)
Throughout history, the Executive and Legislative Branches frequently have had disputes. In every other instance, the two Branches worked out their disagreements without either the House or Senate ever approving a resolution holding any White House officials -- let alone the Chief of Staff and Counsel to the President -- in contempt under its statutory contempt power. (No previous White House claimed executive privilege for its staffers, when the President wasn't involved in the actual decision, as Bush claims)
If the House Democrats try to bring a civil case in federal court, they will be met with opposition at the courthouse door and at every step of the way. (Remember George Wallace?)
So if the Democrats choose to press this dispute, we are confident that the Administration will prevail against this unprecedented and wholly unwarranted vote of contempt. (Not only did I throw down the gauntlet, I pissed to mark my territory. It's harder to cover a big area without a penis.)
Well Dana, if George Bush has nothing to hide, why not give Congress its witnesses? They'll just testify the White House behaved admirably. Isn't that the same logic foisted on Americans interested in protecting their privacy rights? We shouldn't fear spying, unless we have something to hide. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It applies to both openness and rule of law. George Bush said, "I think there ought to be zero tolerance of people breaking the law during an emergency." Zero tolerance should be zero tolerance.
Oh Dana, you now have the worldwide credibility of Condi Rice. Look for your Chevron supertanker soon. Remember, it doesn't turn on a dime.
The rule of law, cited by President Bush in Katrina's aftermath via his "zero tolerance" admonishment, does not apply to the White House or corporations breaking the law in conjunction with "his orders". When President Bush was inaugurated he promised to run an ethical administration, "to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government as we serve the American people."
Everyone who enters into public service for the United States has a duty to the American people to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government.
Fast forward seven years to find his Press Secretary, whining about unfair treatment by Congress, trying to compel testimony on an issue of concern, the firing of numerous state Attorney Generals. Recall Alberto Gonzales, the government's Justice Chief who couldn't recall virtually anything on the witness stand? He must've been hanging out too long around the tattered purple couch in the White House basement. And what was in that smoke that gave Alberto fuzzy memories? Whatever it was, it made Dana bitchy. Consider her words in her public whining:
This action is unprecedented, and it is outrageous. It is also an incredible waste of time – (Dis)
The absurdity and unfairness of the vote, arbitrarily designated Mr. Bolten -- in his official, not personal, capacity -- as the “Custodian of Records” for documents (Whine)
This is as a blatant sop to the far left and shameful behavior by House Democrats. (Liberal, commie, pinko, tin foil hat wearing)
It is astonishing and deeply troubling that after months of delay on passing a bill that will help our intelligence professionals monitor foreign terrorists who want to kill Americans, the House has instead turned its attention to the silly, pointless, and unjust act of approving these contempt resolutions. (Look over there! Danger Will Robinson!)
Throughout history, the Executive and Legislative Branches frequently have had disputes. In every other instance, the two Branches worked out their disagreements without either the House or Senate ever approving a resolution holding any White House officials -- let alone the Chief of Staff and Counsel to the President -- in contempt under its statutory contempt power. (No previous White House claimed executive privilege for its staffers, when the President wasn't involved in the actual decision, as Bush claims)
If the House Democrats try to bring a civil case in federal court, they will be met with opposition at the courthouse door and at every step of the way. (Remember George Wallace?)
So if the Democrats choose to press this dispute, we are confident that the Administration will prevail against this unprecedented and wholly unwarranted vote of contempt. (Not only did I throw down the gauntlet, I pissed to mark my territory. It's harder to cover a big area without a penis.)
Well Dana, if George Bush has nothing to hide, why not give Congress its witnesses? They'll just testify the White House behaved admirably. Isn't that the same logic foisted on Americans interested in protecting their privacy rights? We shouldn't fear spying, unless we have something to hide. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It applies to both openness and rule of law. George Bush said, "I think there ought to be zero tolerance of people breaking the law during an emergency." Zero tolerance should be zero tolerance.
Oh Dana, you now have the worldwide credibility of Condi Rice. Look for your Chevron supertanker soon. Remember, it doesn't turn on a dime.
