E.J. Dionne Sees Only Conservative Hypocrisy
E.J. Dionne has the following in his latest column:
The senator vigorously rejected the president’s claim of executive privilege. “I find this extraordinary and troublesome,” he said, “and I think it will ultimately be damaging to the president. . . . This is an attempt to stonewall our committee, and the public will be outraged.”
Doesn’t that sound like one of those tough statements by Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, the Democratic point man on the U.S. attorney scandal? The speaker was actually the Republican whom Schumer defeated nine years ago, Alfonse D’Amato, discussing Bill Clinton’s invocation of executive privilege in the Whitewater investigation. Nice to see Chuck and Al agree on something.
Wow! You really got him there!
Except that D’Amato isn’t around anymore, so it’s a bit tough to accuse him of hypocrisy. Hey, E.J.! If it’s hypocrisy you’re after — live hypocrisy, involving someone still in the Senate — how about putting this passage into a column?
The senator vigorously defended the president’s claim of executive privilege. “I do not believe we should be issuing subpoenas to the Justice Department unless that step is absolutely necessary,” he said. “I would also like to discuss with the Chairman about following the model we used in the Ruby Ridge hearings. As I recall, to ensure the bipartisan nature of the investigation, the Subcommittee Chairman issued subpoenas only with the consent of the Ranking Member.”
Doesn’t that sound like one of those defensive statements by Sen. Orrin Hatch, the staunch defender of the Administration on the U.S. attorney scandal? The speaker was actually the man who was the ranking member eight years ago, Pat Leahy, discussing Bill Clinton’s invocation of executive privilege in the investigation of questionable pardons. Nice to see Pat and Orrin agree on something.
Why don’t we see E.J. Dionne making that statement instead of the one he made?
It would be plenty factual.
Ask Eric Alterman or Glenn Greenwald. They’re the ones who claim that conservatives are in charge of the media.
“I do not believe we should be issuing subpoenas to the Justice Department unless that step is absolutely necessary,”
And how, exactly, do you see hypocrisy in Leahy’s words? If anything, your example shows the huge hypocrisy gap between Democrats and Republicans.
Republicans were happy to step all over precedent and the minority party in their rush to start a fishing expedition into a manufactured scandal. Democrats would have been justified in imitating that same approach now that they have the majority, but they haven’t done so. Purgegate has been going on for months now, but no subpoenas have yet been issued. We passed the point of “necessary” several weeks ago, but Leahy is still trying to work behind the scenes to find a bipartisan solution. He’s handling this investigation exactly the way he’s always said that Republicans should have handled things during the Clinton administration. That’s integrity.
While I’d love to see Rove dragged to the hearings in handcuffs, I’m even happier to see Congress once again being run by people who take their responsibilities seriously and put truth and justice ahead of partisan politics. Thanks for reminding us of the change!
Oregonian (d29c2e) — 4/3/2007 @ 6:40 amheh…
Heh heh..
Hahahaha
BWAHAHAHAHAH… wait what?
Oh snap, you mean Oregonian wasn’t kidding? Oh sweet Mother of Jesus…
Ignoring the idiocy of your statement in light of Pelosi’s attempt to give a major constituent a pass on the minimum wage increase and Feinstein’s BLATANT CoI involving contracts awarded to a company her husband owns (her earlier work against an independant body to police Congress makes a LOT more sense now), you seriously think that “purgegate” and “libbygate” weren’t witch hunts? Are you daft man?
I believe the true hypocracy of Leahy’s statement is born by his assertion that such requests for subpoenas should go through the committee’s ranking member. Now that it’s not HIM (or his party) the requests would go through, it seems he and others no longer favor the notion.
And if yu honestly think this congress is run by people possessing any sort of moral superiority over Republicans, you’re beyond reasoning with.
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 4/3/2007 @ 7:27 amI never knew Donald Rumsfeld was a Liberal. Learn something new every day.
David Ehrenstein (2289f8) — 4/3/2007 @ 8:03 amWhile I’d love to see Rove dragged to the hearings in handcuffs
Really?
And, what, exactly, for? Which “crime” did he commit?
Republicans were happy to step all over precedent and the minority party in their rush to start a fishing expedition into a manufactured scandal.
Really, when?
Which “precedent” was this again?
Purgegate has been going on for months now, but no subpoenas have yet been issued. We passed the point of “necessary” several weeks ago, but Leahy is still trying to work behind the scenes to find a bipartisan solution
Hilarious.
You actually believe there is a scandal here.
I mean, you’re not just pasting talkig points, you actually believe this.
Hey, how many hearings did Leahy hold when Clinton removed all USA’s? Waxman?
The Ace (085125) — 4/3/2007 @ 9:14 amGo ahead, tell us.
Please.
Shoot, how many did he hold when Clinton finally admitted to lying to everyone for at LEAST 7 months, including during a deposition (I still laugh when someone references “it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is…”)
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 4/3/2007 @ 9:17 amSpeaking of hypocrisy, I heard something about Sen. Feinstein stepping down from some committee after it “appeared” she was influencing where defense contracts were going, kind of like Duke Cunningham. Any truth to that, or bogus claim?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/3/2007 @ 6:10 pmI’d heard something about that…
If only – if only – there was a type of person, a profession perhaps, that would look into things such as this. Look into it – investigate it, if you will – and then set forth the facts and observations they gathered in some sort of text format. Perhaps set them forth in a publication for others to read and become informed…
If only there were such people…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/3/2007 @ 6:51 pmAnd this stupid braying brainless jackass CHUCKY SCHUMER is the idiot who was whinning about the prices of cereal while his own sorrupt party are always wanting stupid taxes on everything i mean this guy is aflake complaning about the prices of flakes
krazy kagu (c6ad08) — 4/3/2007 @ 7:59 pm