Of course, one again, caught with your pants down and making a baseless charge.

And, btw, I dont think Merc or UG or any others are less inteligent than me.

You have sole posession of that prize, along with being the only one here I think is a two-faced liar. Experiencing your back-stapping first hand and watching other lies you have perpetrated here, I wouldnt trust you as far as I could throw you.

As bad or worse to me are the Taliban's systematic poisoning of the young schoolgirls in Afghanistan. (shakes head). Although no one has died yet--who poisons little girls just because they're in school?

Only evil, misguided men.

This is all because of a misunderstanding...He wasn't a 7 year old spy. He was a 007 year old spy...<---See what I did there?

That being my precise point: an accurate understanding of the situation shows us the Bush Administration adhered more to the Constitution than either the Administration before his, or the one after. You didn't find senior officials telling us "The Constitution doesn't concern me" in the Bush Administration, but you do now. No wonder I didn't vote for this guy. No wonder I'm going to vote against him next chance I get, too. No wonder I'm going to contribute money to his opponents.

And what about treaties? I don't recall anyone getting shortchanged enough to notice. Where are you getting this? Leftwing blogs? Have you at the last no sense of critical thinking whatsoever? If you're a Democrat, Redux, I thank God I'm not one.

Well, anyway -- spelling and punctuation as original.

In fact, i got it from DoJ IG internal investigation that found the Bush DoJ attorneys used "poor judgment" (a slap on the wrist...the least harsh penalty) and may have acted politically to meet the demands/expectations of the White House to justify torture. Others within the Dept, particularly, the Office of Professional Responsibility, thought it was worse than that and wanted harsher penalties.

And it was not the only internal IG investigation that the Bush DoJ put political expediency above the rule of law. It also applied to actions within the Civil Rights Division and general hiring practices within the Dept.

Three internal reviews casting doubt or finding serious actions by political appointees within the Department that were counter to the concept of following the law.

added:
As to the "before or after", we had that discussion (link) and the best you could come up with about previous (Clinton) DoJ was a book, by Rush Limbaugh's brother, some wingnut site about Reno and a strip club and that someone said that they knew someone who overheard someone suggesting that Reno was involved in a lesbian sexy orgy.

So, please, dont lecture me unless you have facts to support your claims.

But if you insist on continuing a discussion of the respective DoJs, I will be happy to oblige....lets take it back to the link above. :)

DOJ internal investigation... because lawyers never lie, lawyers never have an axe to grind, lawyers are never political, so we can certainly believe that report. :rolleyes:

So you have no faith in the system of federal Inspectors General at all? That they are independent of the political process?

Cool.

Oh, I forgot to list the firing of the US Attorney in the examples of how the Bush DoJ abused the process. The IG report concluded that there was significant evidence that political partisan considerations were an important factor in the removal of several US Attorneys....particularly in the case of David Iglesias, where they found evidence that complaints to Karl Rove by New Mexico Republican political officials and party activists about how Iglesias was handling voter fraud cases (ie ACORN) led to Iglesias's removal (ie he was fired because he didnt do what the White House wanted, even though there was no evidence of voter fraud)

added:
IG report on the above, in case you or UG care to read it. It is not as titillating as UG's link about Reno. :)

NO, they are employed by the same whores you suck up to.

He does glare a lot though...:o

Redux, given your cast of mind, I am sure you carefully do not recall the Clinton Administration dumping all 93 US Attorneys immediately upon entering office -- because this was a Democratic Administration after all -- which cleared the way for the Reno DoJ and those 93 uniformly Clinton appointees to the 93 positions to spend all their serious effort running interference for an ethically-dubious string of gaffes by both the President and the First Lady, each practically trading off with the other. The DoJ stayed like that from beginning to end of that Administration, and the Clinton Administration lived under a permanent faint gray cloud of scandal.

Your boys just suck. Blatantly. I don't vote for such sucky people. You do. If you've ever voted against one, then I do you a disservice; but I've never heard of that being the case.

So did Reagan.

What neither of them did was fire their own appointees for not pursuing a political agenda when it could not be supported by law.

Reagan's methods remained legal throughout his terms of office, Redux. The same cannot be said of Mr. Clinton, whose administration was under that perpetual gray cloud -- especially with regard to the DoJ and the interference it ran for the Clinton White House, and for both terms. I am blessed with normal memory, and recall this clearly.

He didn't fool me enough to vote for him either. But you, OTOH... you give the greatest possible support at every single opportunity to a group that does not merit it -- the Democratic Party, for two generations America's fuckup gang. That is not the action of a man who is either intelligent or honest. Yeah... you're fooled. I shan't be.

Your memory hasn't been challenged, it's your fucked up perception that is so amusing. :haha: