Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Just how sleazy was it for Ashcrot to declassify and spring that

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
keithyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 03:42 PM
Original message
Just how sleazy was it for Ashcrot to declassify and spring that
"wall memo" on the Commission in his effort to lay all blame for 9/11 on the Clinton administration?

Do we really want someone so sleazy, partisan, and unprofessional holding an office like Attorney General? If Bush had any moral integrity about him he would fire Ashcroft for that action. The fact that the Bush administration has and is withholding many Clinton classified documents and would not release them to the Commission despite their asking for those documents was bad enough. But have Ashcroft blind side the Commission by suddenly declassifyiing a document in an attempt to cast blame on another administration is a act that is of the lowest partisan act of cowardice and indecency I have ever seen displayed at this level. Especially after the Bush administration refused to release some Clinton documents that may have positive information about Clinton's actions.

And the RW media doesn't even mention the sleazy and low-ball act by Ashcroft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
walkon Donating Member (919 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. sleaze is ashcroft's middle name
but I thought the release was to discredit gorelick who had been doing a pretty good job of putting heat on the administration, esp. rice. just a rovian attack. swatting flies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMarple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ashcroft is not in the reality most of us usually inhabit.
Edited on Wed Apr-14-04 03:57 PM by MissMarple
The man needs to retire, preferably to some quiet place in the country where our reality doesn't so impolitely intrude. I think losing to a "dead man" sent him over the edge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drfemoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-04 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
49. The FEC is also
fining him for 2000 election campaign funding fraud. He's fighting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-04 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
54. So did Himmler, but both he and his spritual descendant
are going to be equally hard to remove from power, I think.

If we don't stop them in 2004, there will be nothing of the Old American Republic left to save.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopthegop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. BS..
Gorelick wrote the memo...she should have revealed she had a connection to the issue..

Ashcroft had info and revealed it..
Gorelick had info and didn't reveal it...

who's wrong again?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Who's wrong, AGAIN?", you ask? That lying scumbag AssCrack.
That's who.

We WILL stop the GOP - lying, crooked, murdering thieves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopthegop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. so Gorelick didn't write the memo?
or she did, and excused herself because she's part of the process being investigated?

or neither, and Ashcroft was beign truthful when talking about the policies and the memo?

thinking...thinking...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Thinking about all the perjury charges AssCrack will face?
What a lying sack of sh*t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopthegop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. huh?...ok...could be ...
too soon to tell..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Did You Listen To The Interview After The Hearings Today?
The question about her writing of the regulaton (get this straight, she didn't write anything, it passed by her and she may have approved it) was asked. Specifically both the Chairman and Vice Chairman were asked if she should be removed from the panel or be removed from anything dealing with that testimony. They both, one Democrat and one Republican (which are you?) answered by saying that it was absurd that she should recuse herself or even that the question should be asked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopthegop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. they're wrong then..
she was Deputy AG during part of the time period in question...she is helping to investigate herself...that works for you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keithyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. Ashcrofts use of this secretly declassified memo was merely to
cast blame on the Clinton administration for 9/11. Why didn't Ashcroft declassify all the documents from the Clinton administration under his purview? The Commission has been asking for numerous classified documents that the administration had refused to declassify but under pressure is now releasing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drfemoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-04 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
50. She has never hidden
her previous position with the Clinton administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
against all enemies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Are you suggesting
that she disclose a "classified" memo? We don't know what is known at this point, except that Ashcroft lied about what he told FBI Director.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopthegop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. no...I'm suggesting she should not be on the commission
she is one of the people being investigated
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keithyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. She said early on that there were issues to which she had a direct
connection and would therefore recuse herself when those issues came before the Commission. No matter how you paint it, Ascroft is a sleazeball.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. It was rude and petty
especially since everyone on this 9-11 commission has been bending over backwards to be respectful and discrete with these bastards.

However, I think it hurt Asscrack more than anyone else. The investigators are all walking bags of conflicts of interest, this is no longer the issue. The issue is 9-11 and Asscrack played a major role in ignoring terrorism despite alarming evidence and warnings that an attack was imminent. It's beyond belief that all the people in key positions just didn't have a care in the world about terrorism before 9-11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavajoRug Donating Member (330 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
9. Your post is idiotic . . .
I detest Ashcroft as much as anyone else, but Gorelick's role on this commission has been exposed as a complete fraud. She can't possibly even pretend to be objective in any way, and has no role serving on a commission like this when she should be serving as a witness before it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keithyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. You don't think Bush knew her connection when she was appointed?
It was his ace in the whole to discredit whatever the Commission produces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavajoRug Donating Member (330 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. That would be a valid point, except that . . .
. . . Bush did not appoint her. She was one of the Democratic appointees.

If I were on that commission I would resign right now unless her ass was kicked off it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. Hey, wait a minute on that "conflict" business. What about Kean?
Edited on Wed Apr-14-04 06:41 PM by Jackpine Radical
Is everybody forgetting about this?...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO212A.html (Link added on edit)

Unknown to most, UNOCAL's partner in the Cent-Gas trans-Afghan pipeline consortium, the Saudi Company Delta Oil is owned by the bin Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi clans which allegedly have ties to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda.

According to a 1998 Senate testimony of former CIA director James Woolsey, powerful financier Khalid bin Mahfouz’ younger sister is married to Osama bin Laden,. (US Senate, Senate Judiciary Committee, Federal News Service, 3 Sept. 1998, See also Wayne Madsen, Questionable Ties, In These Times,12 Nov. 2001 )

Bin Mahfouz is suspected to have funnelled millions of dollars to the Al Qaeda network.(See Tom Flocco, Scoop.co.nz 28 Aug. 2002)

Now, "by sheer coincidence", former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean, the man chosen by President Bush to lead the 9/11 commission also has business ties with bin Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi.

Thomas Kean is a director (and shareholder) of Amerada Hess Corporation , which is involved in the Hess-Delta joint venture with Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia (owned by the bin Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi clans).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Do you mean like Phil Zelikow did?
He's the staff director of the 911 commission, and he testified in front of the very same commission on his own work with Condi Rice during Bush's presidential transition in 2000.

You can look at each and every one of the members of the commission, who were hand picked by Bush, btw, and you will find conflicts of interest.

Look into Chairman Thomas Keane's finances, for example. He's in business with Khalid bin Mahfouz, Osama's brother-in-law.

It's a bit disingenous when you pick out a single member's conflicts, and leave the rest unmentioned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavajoRug Donating Member (330 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. I see, so you would have had no problem . . .
. . . if John Ashcroft himself were named to serve on this commission?

You have got to be kidding me. We're not talking about a simple "conflict of interest" here -- we're talking about someone serving on the commission who should be testifying before it instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. I've got a problem with nearly every member of the commission
Edited on Wed Apr-14-04 05:04 PM by htuttle
I would like to see another investigation after Kerry gets into office.

Do you have a problem with Zelikow writing up all the commissions reports, and directing staff investigations, when he in fact DID testify before the commission on his own actions during the 2000/2001 transition period?

How about the Chairman being in business with Osama's brother in law? Is that okay?

Again, to suddenly pick out only one of them as 'extra bad' when they are ALL that bad, and when that particular member of the commission has been hard on the administration's witnesses, is not just disingenuous, but blatantly partisan.

edit: speling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
i_c_a_White_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
10. S l e a z y
but for asscroft I'd say its only fitting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
15. I actually thought releasing the memo was acceptable to a degree
My biggest problem is with the timing.

I'm trying to approach this commission with an open mind and understand that the issue of 9/11 goes back to the Clinton Administration. And I think there is likely some blame to be placed there as well. (Call me foolish, but I still cling to the notion that national security should be a non-partisan issue even if no one else in the country feels that way).

The memo shows that Gorelick should not be on the commission because she could be called to testify before it. However, they could have told us this months ago instead of waiting for the right moment to spring it and undercut the process. Then again, Gorelick gave them this ability by not disqualifying herself in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
21. The Freepers admire that kind of behavior- they think it's virtuous.
I guess that illustrates a big difference between us and them. They have no f@cking integrity when it comes to government and politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopthegop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. right...keep telling yourself no progressive would do
something like that...then think of the Gulf of Tonkin...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-04 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #23
42. I didn't say Liberals wouldn't do it- I said we wouldn't think it virtuous
Edited on Thu Apr-15-04 12:18 PM by Redleg
You misquoted me. I am certain LBJ was ashamed of the way he conducted the Vietnam war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMarple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Yup, but they hate it when it happens to them.
They can be such crybabies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joanski01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
26. Commissioner Tom Kean
also said that Sensenbrenner's accusation was silly and that they should keep out of the Commission's business. And Judy Woodruff actually repeated that on her show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. For more fascinating details on Kean,
See my post 33 above
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cally Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
27. Absolute sleazy and breaks many of the unspoken 'rules'
in politics. Basically staff share what will damage you before they do it. You usually get some heads up. It's a matter of respect and knowing that next time it will be turned back on you. Ashcroft DECLASSIFIED a memo to use against a commissioner investigating him. That's sleazy.

One time, I went to testify on an issue and someone released a memo with new information. I had a difficult time responding because I hadn't prepared. The next hearing I waited until about three minutes before the hearing. I walked over and gave it to the man responsible and said this is my new testimony. I had new information that I passed out. I purposely did not ratchet it up and changed my testimony in a way that I knew he could respond but I made my point. They never released stuff at the hearing again that I was not given a heads up on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snellius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
28. Ashcroft and Ted Olson still think Clinton is Evil Incarnate
Ashcroft was so convinced that anything done by Clinton, or by any of his godless minions, was the vile handiwork of the devil that he didn't even bother to find out that the Great Satan Bill had already issued an order to kill Bin Laden, the very proposal that Ashcroft had self-righteously heralded to Bush as his own.

The most striking thing in a way about Ashcroft's testimony yesterday was really how out of the loop he was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
29. Bushies ratified it August 2001
That's the real kicker. They ratified this exact same policy themselves. Hamilton said that today in the press conference. How much you want to bet that never gets reported.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keithyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. It hasn't so far. It will take Will Pitt to make the point and a call to
the Rush Limbaugh show where the ditto heads can hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
30. it reminds me of the several times he has violated legal gag orders
to make unfounded allegations against American citizens on trial for their lives. How can this lawless man be our chief law man? Oh yeah, he obeys the words the voices in his head tell him, so it's all ok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crushbush04 Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. Before you jump
to the typical kneejerk reaction...please note... SHE WROTE THE DAMN MEMO download it off Drudge.

This woman should be answering questions.

I couldnt care less that Asscrot is the one that pointed it out.

The fact is she wrote it.

in the name of truth and full disclosure...GET HER THE HELL OFF THE PANEL AND IN THE HOT SEAT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SEAburb Donating Member (985 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Damn I hate it when moles tunnel up in my backyard
<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crushbush04 Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
31. Get her off the commitee now.
She has some nerve to sit up there asking questions.

It proves what I think of all these jerks. Its a room full of shameless liars and crooks. Every single one of them.

Do you realize she may be one of the many reasons 9/11 happened? Her memo is directly responsible for the lack of communication between the FBI and the CIA. And its possibly the reason they couldnt investigate the contents Moussaui's laptop.

Go check out the memo she wrote herself !

I am really starting to HATE , and I do mean HATE, all these assholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. If you're looking for purity, or even reasonable credibility,
you'd have to throw the whole commission off the commission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crushbush04 Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. It seems as if
its just too much to ask for decent public representatives.

I swear, Its sickening

This is like a commitee of wolves investigating the disappearance of sheep while the wool is still stuck in their teeth.

Lets be real here. Gorelick should not be on the commitee but mark my words the repugs on the panel with her are going to defend her. I guarantee it. Thats because they are all part one fraternity that we regular people are just not a part of.

PS. on a lighter note the "G" in Kenny G is Gorelick. Maybe she is a relative
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #31
40. Zelikow is not a SHE.. , but good call..Zelikow is biased and tainted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
32. it just shows his desperation and guilt!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MO_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
39. I think it was
pretty damn sleazy, and the creep did not let out a peep about HIS OWN ratification of this "wall" thing! If it was so horrible for Jamie Gorelick to have anything to do with that "memo", why is is perfectly excusable for ASHCROFT TO DO THE SAME DAMN THING?

He was just auditioning for his job in what he hopes is the next administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EndElectoral Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-04 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
43. Ashcroft Question
If Gorelick did write this memo in 96 as Dep. Atty. General, why wouldn't Ashcroft have issued a new one in 2001 upon appointment as Attorney General with his correction?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-04 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. She did write the guidelines, but did not MAKE LAW!
This is an exerpt from the Ashcroft testimony that is available on the 911 Commission web page. In my opinion, it is an INTERPRETATION of the law. Gorelick explained why she wrote the memo (on several CNN programs yesterday). If the FBI was sooo upset about how this interpretation has hamstrung their abilities, wouldn't they have sent a request to Ashcroft, immediately upon his taking office, requesting a re-interpretation?

Here is the exerpt from Ashcroft's testimony yesterday:

But somebody did make these rules. Someone built this wall.
The basic architecture for the wall in the 1995 Guidelines was contained in a classified memorandum
entitled "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal
Investigations." The memorandum ordered FBI Director Louis Freeh and others, quote: "We believe that
it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence
investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go
beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is
being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."
This memorandum established a wall separating the criminal and intelligence investigations following the
1993 World Trade Center attack, the largest international terrorism attack on American soil prior to
September 11. Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the
Commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full
disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this Commission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mrs. Venation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-04 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
44. According To The Washington Post
...other officials and documents suggest that the wall was in the process of being built before the memo. The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, in a 2002 ruling, noted that the Justice Department had begun erecting the legal wall "during the 1980s," as an interpretation of the 1978 statute governing clandestine wiretaps.

The Sept. 11 commission has also determined that sometime after Gorelick's memo was written, then-Attorney General Janet Reno updated the older guidelines with the intention of forcing better information sharing among criminal investigators.

Ashcroft, at Tuesday's hearing, conceded under questioning by Commissioner Slade Gorton, a former Republican senator from Washington state, that his own deputy attorney general, Larry Thompson, had renewed the terms of the Gorelick memo in August 2001.

A senior member of the commission staff yesterday described the declassified letter that Ashcroft released as "a red herring."


The article goes on to say that the memo was in compliance with statutory law that had been in existence since the 1980's, and that Gorelick's colleagues on the commission rushed to her defense, characterizing her as qualified and nonpartisan, and complaining privately that she was ambushed by Ashcroft.

See the full story here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13198-2004Apr14.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
F.Gordon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-04 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
45. When was this memo written?
When I search I see 1994 and 1995, but no month.

Because in June of 1995 Clinton established a new PDD regarding Counterterrorism. Could it be that Clinton actually read something put on his desk?

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
F.Gordon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-04 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. Kick. Anyone know the answer to my question?
Or, does everyone have me on ignore?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mrs. Venation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-04 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #45
51. Again, According to The Washington Post
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) acted a day after Attorney General John D. Ashcroft surprised the panel by releasing the March 5, 1995, memo drafted by Gorelick, a Democrat who served during the Clinton administration.

If you had clicked on the link I initially posted you'd have found this information yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-04 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
47. To answer your question about sleeze....no it wasn't.
Opportunistic, yes, but I must admit, if a Dem could have done the same thing to him, we would have all been cheering!

I'm all for the "pot shots" on both sides. I just hope the Dems are looking as hard as the Pubs are to find them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
randr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-04 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
52. Twisting facts to comply with his warped sense of reality
is the basis of his religion. He has been taught since birth that the ends justify the means no matter how mean you become.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drfemoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-04 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
53. Irresponsible
More of the same from this mis-administration. They only want credit for making us "Safer". And building the Economy.

Who are the real evildoers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC