There are currently two separate ethics investigations going on in Washington: investigations to see if Rep. Laura Richardson and Rep. Maxine Waters, both Democrats from California, violated rules of conduct. Rep. Laura Richardson’s case involves whether she received preferential treatment in the foreclosure and eventual re-acquisition of her home in Sacramento, California.
Waters is being investigated for allegedly seeking preferential treatment for a bank linked to her husband, the committee said. According to the panel’s announcement, the investigation will look into whether Waters or her husband benefited from any of her communications or actions involving One United Bank, in which her husband held stock and previously was a director.
At a time when politicians are under intense scrutiny by every pundit with a camera or a computer, one would think those same politicians would learn crime doesn’t pay. South Carolina has had its share of idiots as well, both Republicans, so it’s not limited to any one party. So what is it about politics that tends to bring out the worst in some people? Or do the statistics reflect the general population? I can imagine the answer to that question runs the gamete of everything from stupidity to outright greed, to it isn’t any different than pick a city near you. But I think there’s a basic question that does need to be answered: Is politics, hence party affiliation, really involved, or does the perp lose that when he or she walks the on the unethical side? My answer to that is: a crook is a crook, and what party they belong to makes no difference. I’ve seen it used too often when either a Democrat or Republican is charged with a crime, then suddenly it’s their parties fault. One can list the unethical from both parties, and the list would be ten pages long, at least. So using party affiliation as a blaming factor for criminal behavior is pointless. Any other views?
This New York Times article suggests that the CIA retained tight control over the detainee interrogations. A quote:
“The Central Intelligence Agency’s secret interrogation program operated under strict rules, and the rules were dictated from Washington with the painstaking, eye-glazing detail beloved by any bureaucracy.”
So these were not low level people gone wild, which was what was alleged with the Abu Ghraib scandal, but instead was orchestrated by the highest levels in Washington.
This just might get interesting… Way past time, but, oh well…
Yes, we already knew he was responsible for the politically-motivated firings of attorneys, so we could file this under the things we already knew. The question now is will there be any accountability? The whole fiasco of the bush the lesser administration begs for assurances that crooks can’t be running our country.
The House Committee investigating the Bush-era U.S. attorney firings released 5,400 pages of interviews with Karl Rove and Harriet Miers as well as RNC and White House e-mails that reveal “White House officials were deeply involved in the U.S. attorney firings and the administration made a concerted effort to hide that fact from the American people,” according to the press release from the committee.
“Under the Bush regime, honest and well-performing U.S. attorneys were fired for petty patronage, political horsetrading and, in the most egregious case of political abuse of the U.S. attorney corps–that of U.S. Attorney Iglesias—because he refused to use his office to help Republicans win elections,” Conyers said.
Janet Napolitano, Head of the Dept of Homeland Secuity, on Wednesday said, “For too long, we’ve treated the public as a liability to be protected rather than as an asset in our nation’s collective security. This approach, unfortunately, has allowed confusion, anxiety and fear to linger.” Well, Janet, your points are exactly 100% true. Do you not get that sowing confusion, anxiety and fear was the express purpose of the Dept of Homeland Security. George and Dick had a good thing going with this schtick, too. They won the presidency in 2004 after allowing the worst attack in history on American soil. They won that contest by convincing voters that they would be better at keeping America safe.
So, you’re talking about educating U.S. citizens on recognizing terrorism precusors, working with foreign governments in processing their intelligence data, and improving the communication among local and federal law enforcement in this country. All that sounds good, but what about this self-defeating plan of reducing confusion, anxiety, and fear? Do you need a job, or not?
The death penalty will not be considered for Scott Roeder whom many eye-witnesses attest murdered George Tiller, M.D. in cold blood in his Church on 05-31-09. My question is: why not?
While Nola Foulston likes to talk tough, it is my opinion she is a pretty conservative in the sense that she does not like to take political risks. I think I agree with what I speculate are her moral calculations with this case.
Roeder has been diagnosed with Schizophrenia in the past. His court appointed attorneys would likely raise a McNaughton defense* if the sought penalty was death. I think Nola’s calculus is “let’s get him for something less than the death penalty; he will likely die in prison, anyway”. Mission accomplished.
I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty. My ex-wife used to enjoy pointing out the basic inconsistencies of my position on these subjects. Inconsistency does not bother me that much. I think our support of the death penalty in this country groups us with some of the most backward and fascist governments in the world. I would hope for more for America.
Given all of the above, I have to wonder if the death penalty for Scott Roeder would not send an important message to the next generation of abortion doctor killers? I think Roeder says pretty outrageous things for press and the attention, but I have no doubt there are many poised to follow in his footsteps.
In the end, I do agree with Ms. Foulston; a state sponsored killing of Roeder, makes the state no better than him. Though I am doubting the preceding was her rationalization.
*McNaughton = not guilty by reason of insanity defense. These are rarely won – which is contrary to what the public believes as revealed by numerous surveys.
It is interesting that Scott Roeder is saying that Operation Rescue took over $1,000 in donations from him. Newman is denying finding Scott in their data-base.
I wonder if Troy Newman (pictured) will decide that now might be a good time for him to get out of Wichita. What purpose does the scum have here now that Tiller is deceased? Please join me in inviting Mr. Newman to leave Doodah, ASAP. And, Troy, don’t let the door hit you in the ass as you go…
These are Ann Coulter’s words on the murder of Abortion doctor, Geroge Tiller:
“I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester.”
“I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t want to impose my moral values on others.”
I have very mixed feelings about giving Ann any coverage. But I decided we need to see these people for what they really are.
Coulter made these statements on the O’Reilly show. Read more here.