Erlichman, Haldeman, Rove: The major difference between our criminal 37th and 41st presidents is that the current lawbreaker-in-chief, Mr. Bush, has admitted to his illegal actions, whereas President Nixon never did cop to his crimes.
Still, it’s like the Bushists are using an old Nixon playbook. Now, true to form, the president’s chief enforcer, Karl Rove, is calling Republican senators and threatening them with being blacklisted by the White House. This report comes from the ultra-rightwing Washington Times, a newspaper owned by the Rev. Sun Yung Moon, head of the Unification Church cult. You can find it on the Washington Times website — go here to Google it:
The White House has been twisting arms to ensure that no Republican member votes against President Bush in the Senate Judiciary Committee.s investigation of the administration’s unauthorized wiretapping.
Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November…
The sources said the administration has been alarmed over the damage that could result from the Senate hearings, which began on Monday, Feb. 6. They said the defection of even a handful of Republican committee members could result in a determination that the president violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Such a determination could lead to impeachment proceedings.
Others have pointed out the irony of having Rove — who blithely revealed the identity of a secret agent who was monitoring the black market for weapons of mass destruction for purely political reasons — threatening to kneecap members of his party who believe the president does not have the authority to spy on U.S. citizens.
Actually, Bush has admitted his actions, not his crime. He is trying to say that what he did isn’t illegal because he’s the president. I’m glad you posted this. I saw it on WTF is it Now the other day, and wanted to follow-up.
And it certainly explains why no one insisted on administering the oath to Gonzales.
Actually, the Dems tried hard to have Gonzalez take the oath. They called for a voice vote on it, and what would have tied as an 8-8 vote along party lines was decided by two absent Repugs’ proxy votes. When asked to produce the proxies, committee chair Arlen Specter declined on procedural grounds and started the hearing with Gonzalez able to lie without breaking an oath to God.
RE: Taking the oath. Whether or not Gonzalez took the oath before his testimony is irrelevent. All administration officials take the oath upon entering office and it is well settled this oath is sustained and in effect throughout their term in office. In other words, the oath taken upon assuming the office makes taking any furter oaths superflous and unncecessary. This holds for all administration officials, not just the AG.