These lefties just won’t quit. Look at the headline of this story:
Administration Withheld E-Mails About Rove
Wow, Bush withheld documents?
The Bush administration has withheld a series of e-mails from Congress showing that senior White House and Justice Department officials worked together to conceal the role of Karl Rove in installing Timothy Griffin, a protégé of Rove’s, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
The withheld records show that D. Kyle Sampson, who was then-chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, consulted with White House officials in drafting two letters to Congress that appear to have misrepresented the circumstances of Griffin’s appointment as U.S. attorney and of Rove’s role in supporting Griffin.
In one of the letters that Sampson drafted, dated February 23, 2007, the Justice Department told four Senate Democrats it was not aware of any role played by senior White House adviser Rove in attempting to name Griffin to the U.S. attorney post. A month later, the Justice Department apologized in writing to the Senate Democrats for the earlier letter, saying it had been inaccurate in denying that Rove had played a role.
Bad news right? Well hold on a sec:
The senior official said that Gonzales, in preparing for testimony before Congress, has personally reviewed the withheld records and has a responsibility to make public any information he has about efforts by his former chief of staff, other department aides, and White House officials to conceal Rove’s role.
"If [Gonzales] didn’t know everything that was going on when it went down, that is one thing," this official said. "But he knows and understands chapter and verse. If there was an effort within Justice and the White House to mislead Congress, it is his duty to disclose that to Congress. As the country’s chief law enforcement official, he has a higher duty to disclose than to protect himself or the administration."
White House spokesman Tony Fratto denied that the White House was withholding records in the Justice Department’s possession, and he said that Gonzales could make many of them public at any time. "The White House is neither guiding nor directing the Justice Department’s decisions on privileged documents," Fratto said. "They make those decisions on their own."
Oh, so Justice is withholding the documents…..
But I thought the byline of this story is that Bush did?
Yeah.
Anyways the story is old old news. In February Justice said Rove wasn’t involved, then in March they said they had a mistake and that Rove was involved. All this was revealed two months ago.
But again, here is the clincher. It was NOT illegal to fire these prosecutors. They serve at the pleasure of the President and he did not need ANY reason to let them go. Rove’s guy, Tim Griffin, is qualified to hold that position.
It’s called a political appointment of a qualified individual.
End of story.
But we know the lefts show trials won’t stop here in their quest for power.
See author page
OFF TOPIC: a little distraction for your reading pleasure
(the language may be considered a little harsh)
http://thecitytroll.blogspot.com/2007/05/theyre-feeding-us-load-of-shit.html
It is entirely amazing that this sort of stuff needs to be said. But, apparently it does need to be said:
Wow, Bush withheld documents?
Actually, no where does the article you cite say that George Bush withheld documents. That’s your spin, Curt. It’s confused to say the least.
The headline you cite says quite plainly “Administration Withheld E-Mails About Rove”. You know Curt, ADMINISTRATION, as in:
The activity of a government or state in the exercise of its powers and duties.
3. often Administration
a. The executive branch of a government.
Of course, the current executive branch is led by George Bush, hence it is named: The Bush Administration. And, this administration, being part of the executive branch, would include, oh… I don’t know… the Department of Justice maybe?
For some reason, you seem to think that because the Bush Administration bares his name, that he doesn’t bare responsibility. I guess. But, what is interesting is that you choose to express this by stating that the article, somehow, although is clearly does not, actually says, as you put it: Bush withheld documents when it does not say that Bush withheld them, it says that his Administration held them.
Yet, you persist:
Oh, so Justice is withholding the documents…..
But I thought the byline of this story is that Bush did?
Okay, Curt. I’ll play. So, where exactly does it say, anywhere in the article you cite, that Bush was withholding the documents?
I mean, uh… you do understand that a sitting presidents administration bares his name and that as such he bares much of the responsibility for what occurs under his watch, in the Administration / Executive branch, right?
Oh, I see, you object to his being blamed for things that occur under his Presidency, in his Administration? Is that it?
I can understand that, I suppose. But, again: where does it actually say in the article you cite that Bush (not his administration) withheld documents?
And, one has to figure if you get something so elemental incorrect, the rest must be subject to scrutiny, no?
It was NOT illegal to fire these prosecutors.
You see Curt, it’s not about the illegality of the actions. As Ed Morrissey put it: Illegal? No. But it smells.
And, Ed is all over this issue and has been. Regarding it’s importance:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009399.php
And, today:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009938.php
So, why all the focusing on inserting spin into it now Curt?
Since you like to quote Ed:
While the Justice Department is a part of the administration those lines in the paper cited will make it seem to the layperson who picks up the paper and reads the first few paragraphs (as most people do) that Bush was behind the emails being withheld.
The whole article is about “The Bush Administration” this and the “The Bush Administration” that when they could of easily have written “the Justice Department withheld”. Why the use of “The Bush Administration” over and over again?
Because this is what are MSM does nowadays and it’s called BDS. I’ve given examples of this MSM bias over and over and over again on this blog but on occasion there comes someone such as yourself who is stricken with the leftist virus who refuses to see this syndrome. Tis okay, nothing less is expected from lefties.
What is it with you and Ed? Is he the spokesperson for Conservatives now or something to you?….geez. Whether it smells to you or not the fact of the matter is it was not illegal nor improper. They serve at the leisure of the President.
BDS plain and simple.
Tell that to the 93 that were fired under Clinton.
Political independence my ass.
Reminds me of the hysteria the MSM drums up about the Signing Statements. Not like Clinton did any of those, including one in which he refused to carry our abortion related legislation. But nary a word about that from our MSM at the time.
I still dont see why this is an issue and needs any investigation at all.
Clinton fired 93 and all hell breaks loose when Bush or Justice whatever fire 8?
Needless, tiresome, investigations that we are all paying for dandy.
And when they find NOTHING, will they reimburse us the money wasted on all this crap?
How about the next investigation and the next?
I could slap all the Republicans that didnt get up off thier duff’s and vote.