If the president ordered this, he should be censured. It isn’t strictly illegal, but it would expose him as having had lied to the American people to cover his own ass, which is disgusting.

One of those comments that probably would have worked better in person, so that I’d have had the tone and expression going for me.

At the moment, I can imagine that Committee working out just what the definition of “is” is for him so that he is not telling lies…

I disagree that Clinton’s behavior didn’t put anyone in danger. In retrospect his pusillanimous (official, not personal) behaviour in office encouraged al Qaida et al. to consider us weak, while his failure over eight years to attack their bases or their infrastructure seriously left them free to attack us pretty much at will. I’m inclined to let people blow that off though (ba-zing!) because at the time I didn’t think see that we had real enemies either.

Also, since the point is that this wasn’t an illegal leak (I think the point is worth further discussion: “if the president leaks it it’s not illegal” is both too broad a definition of presidential powers and has echoes of Nixon) I think you’re assuming your conclusion by calling it a misdeed, or you’re talking about other things which you think are mideeds.

BTW – the word “disturbing” is what I would use to describe torture or something; maybe “ironic” would be more fitting?

BTW – the use of the word “excited” was unintentional, as is the use of the word “wild,” which I just noticed I used above. I’m sure it’s a subconscious thing.

Getting to combine a little business with a little gittin’ busy? Hell yeah, I’m excited!

Well, to be fair, apart from the fact that the act involved an intern, I believe the reports at the time noted that some of the activity was occurring while President Clinton was talking on the phone to some foreign leader or representative.

Yeah, I think that was worth getting a LITTLE excited about, don’t you?

(I’m not a Clinton “hater” any more than I’m a Bush “hater,” so I’d respectfully request that no one go there.)

Something about using the word “exciting” in this context is a bit disturbing, btw.

I’m not sure what it would take before Bush would be held accountable for his misdeeds. I listened to a radio program yesterday where the gist of the opinion was: Just one more example of BS coming from this teflon president. Just like all the other stuff he has done, he will say that he had a right to do it, and it’s necessary because of terrorism, and enough people will say, “Yeah, goddam right. This is America!!! F’ yeah!” Since he won’t be getting in trouble EVER, I just continue to hope that the damage he does during the remainder of his term isn’t too bad.

BTW – Getting a BJ in the oval office isn’t a crime either, but everyone got all excited about that. Will someone explain to me how that is more important than any ONE of the “unethical” things Bush has done?

Jeff – Are you serious? The debate about release of CI would be fairly convoluted, but I think it is fair to say that it is legal for the President to de-classify at will if it is in the interest of national security. I don’t think the Plames could be classified as enemies of the state. …. and Bush’s legal rights are in place for administrative (not political) reasons.

Someone should start a post about this. I’d love to see a debate.

I think if true, this is further evidence that the administration was going to great length to discredit anyone who dared speak in opposition of its policies, to the extent of releasing confidential info (even done if legally) to support its position in “the interest of national security.” The Plame allegation is separate; if that’s true, it exposes a personal vendetta, showing another example of the “great length” the administration was willing to go to.

Either way, as Daniel states clearly, these are not the acts of a person bringing morals back to the White House.

This is the same President who campaigned as a man of principles who would restore honor to the White House. There’s a limit to the amount of doublespeak that the American public will accept…recent polling indicates this administration has far exceeded that threshold.

http://www.thoughttheater.com

I’ve written about how much that mindset bothers a number of times, over time, elsewhere, but this pretty much puts it in a nutshell:

“‘ But I have say that it has become clear to me that too many people in our government–including those in the White House–appear to be either unwilling, or incapable, of adopting a mindset that can effectively strike a balance between promoting security from outside threats and preserving the civil rights that make America what it is. Instead, they appear to push and push and push and push the envelope. To hand these types of people the cloak of secrecy and opacity is to also give them a loaded gun pointed at our most cherished freedoms.’

From time to time, in this sandbox and elsewhere, I’ve stated that it’s the mindset that is bothering me, and that there appeared to be some significant, and growing, thread of people in various parts of our current government who–to put it in stark words this time–share the attitude that the ends justify any and all means in pursuing their political agenda.”

Sorry about the odd quotation marks: I was actually quoting myself, from another post, in the particular post from which this is excerpted. (Wow! Now there’s one heckuva a sentence! LOL).

Donklephant posters: If it wasn’t OK for me to quote a post of mine in this way here, just let me know. I just couldn ‘t see the point of rephrasing something that I’d already put into words to my satisfaction previously.