U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 16, 2007 03:00 PM UTC

Friday Open Thread

  • 86 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Rebuilding government’s “institutional memory,” one angry rant at a time.

Tweet
Share

Comments

86 thoughts on “Friday Open Thread”

  1. is Ken Salazar has re-thought his position on Alberto, with the release of these new emails?  What does he think about Karl Rove’s involvement?  I uunderstand not jumping the gun, but it is becoming painfully obvious what the real intent was behind these firings.

    C’mon Ken, pony up.

  2. “Darrell Watson, who is running for the open District 8 council seat, received a deferred sentence for ‘wrongs to a minor,’ according to police and court records.”
    http://www.denverpos…

    Watson’s supporters are calling it a non-story:

    “…the truth is simply mundane and speaks more to the difficulty of raising children after divorce.”
    http://www.squaresta…

    Watson has been endorsed by:
    Progressive Majority
    http://www.progressi…

    Denver Labor
    http://www.denverlab…

    and other local leaders
    http://www.electwats…

      1. I hope, anyway.

        Do you think spanking a child disqualifies someone from forever holding public office?  Or, only when the spanking leads to a criminal conviction?

        1. It is a non story, I got spanked… maybe my mom should have done it more. The staff should have broke it when he first ran so it was a non story even more than it is.  Watson is a great guy and will make a great city council member.

        2. …someone’s character when they hit a child.  Pleading guilty to the crime is another thing that needs to be questioned.

          Duties of city council involve difficult decisions to at times complex problems, and someone who’s problem solving skills lead to hitting a child repeatedly rather than other alternatives might not be able to tackle Denver’s problems.

          1. So, it’s not clear to me whether he admitted to “hitting a child repeatedly.”  Maybe so, maybe not. 

            In any event, I should have qualified my earlier post.  According to the article, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and received a deferred sentence.  This means that, if he doesn’t violate the probationary terms of the deferred sentence during the time the deferral is in place, the whole thing will go away.  Thus, he has no conviction in place at all anymore, assuming he complied with the probationary terms and the deferral period is over.

            1. The child was hit 6 times, 3 by Watson, and I define that as being hit repeatedly.

              THank you for explaining the ‘deferred sentence’ but nevertheless he pleaded guilty to hitting a child and my argument is that it shows poor judgement and problem solving skills to discipline a child by hiting him/her six times.

              1. And I would call 3 times “repeatedly.”

                Perhaps I’m a heartless bastard, but these facts don’t make me seriously question his judgment.  And I don’t even know him.  Spanking a child on the behind 3 times doesn’t strike as a failure of problem-solving skills necessarily.  I don’t find this sort of spanking to be a big deal.  Especially because, as far I as know, this was an isolated incident.  I don’t think we should generalize too much about someone from an isolated incident.  Better to evaluate his character and judgment by looking at the whole of his decisions about many things.

                2. That certainly suggests more than a swat on the behind.

                  Frankly the picture of two grown men simultaneously and repeatedly striking a child to the point of leaving bruises is not a very pretty picture in my estimation.

                  1. I am sorry but it is not that big of a deal. If they smacked him for an hour or did it daily there would be an issue.  I bruise easy from walking into things, so I am not sure they were using that much force.  6 spanks… really people?  It’s not like they used a belt like many of our folks.

                    We have gotten into this bubble where kids get put in a corner for 5 mins and it will change them. I do not say hit or abuse a kid but come on a spank on the ass once and awhile is not going to destroy them.

            2. A candidate’s traffic tickets? Leash-law violations? The names of several Denver city council candidates can be found in court records:

              http://www.denvergov…

              For example: in 2001, Watson was cited and fined for “18-4-802(1)(2) THEFT OF PUBLIC TRANS-RTD.” Case Number R001988

              Big deal or not, it’s public record. A reporter is not out of bounds for writing about it.

              1. Where did you get that?

                And I never said that certain offenses don’t matter or don’t mean anything.  By the same token, certain offenses don’t mean EVERYTHING.  Can we have some perspective?

    3. Once again this speaks to how people choose to raise their children.  With the “new” extended family model, what is the definition of “other people’s kids”?  If I were to marry someone who had kids (as my stepmother did) I would want them to consider my family as their family.  Therefore, how a family chooses to discipline the children should be upheld by all the “parents”.

      Clearly, spanking is a cultural issue.  I personally see nothing wrong with it and if I had children, spanking would be a part of how I would discipline my child.  I was spanked and have nothing but love and admiration for my dad (who BTW was the greatest parent of all time!! He raised his daughter by himself at a time when it wasn’t popular to be a Dad.  He sacraficed to make sure I was educated and he was invovled in my life.  He knew my friends and their parents, and spoke to me about anything and everything I enquired about (which wasn’t easy for a man raising a young girl)).

      Clearly many of you may disagree, that’s fine.  Raise your children the best way you see fit.  As in the case of Watson, he agreed to raise the children the way the biological parents saw fit.  Both parents and a family counselor agreed that spanking would be a form of discipline and the father was present during the spanking. His statement has been sent to his supporters and it is on his website.  And before you all jump on me as a shill, yes, I am connected to Darrell’s campaign.

      2. Just kidding.

        The ultimate question is why hit a child when there are obviously healthier ways to discipline a child?  Why abandon reasoning, problem solving, and compassion and say, “sorry son I don’t know how to deal with mis-behaving like all kids do, so I’m going to hit you and see how that works out for everybody.”

        One other question, let’s say a parent hits a child in the face three times and it leaves a bruise.  Why is that offense more serious than spanking?  Is it because the bruises don’t show?

        2. Do you have children? If you don’t abandon reasoning, problem solving, and compassion on a semi regular basis while parenting, your name is Carol Brady.  No one wants to lose it, but those little darlins’ can get the best of any parent. I must say though, the thought of two guys each taking three licks at a kid and leaving bruises seems beyond the pale to me.

          2. with whom I spend an enormous amount of time, and I have never yet felt the least inclination to hit her, nor can I imagine ever feeling such an inclination. I understand what you’re saying: Obviously, children do test the patience of their parents, and humans being humans, it is understandable that that patience might sometimes be exhausted and parents might do things they would have wished not to do. But it’s also reasonable to hold them accountible when what they do offends public sensibilities. Any time anyone hits a young child for any reason, I loose a little bit of respect for them (though there might be enough left over that I still hold them in high regard).

      3. Spanked the first kid occasionally.

        Spanked the second kid maybe once or twice.

        Spanked the third kid – never.

        As you learn more on how to parent effectively, there is less and less need for spanking.

        1. ……do you think that you should disqualified from holding public office because you spanked the first kid occasionally, or the second kid once or twice?

    4. I gotta say… using the word “hit” certainly implies more than a spanking. I generally disapprove of spanking, but having seen children that were actually hit (i.e. punched, smacked in the face, etc.) I think it is going a little overboard to characterize them as being the same.

      2. I’ll believe you don’t fear the red.  But, pal, Team Tofu is positively getting mitch-slapped by a reinvigorated GOP.  You’re getting beat here in Colorado and you’re getting beat in Congress.  Your caucus is miserably split on the war while the GOP is surprisingly united despite the fallacious ‘unpopularity’ of the war.  Ritter’s union veto is causing all sorts of discontent with liberal activists and Comrades Gordon and Tupu laid an egg with their ridiculous anti-war resolution.  Most people who showed up to protest were actually IN FAVOR of supporting our troops and nobody I know, even anti-war Democrats, thought this was a good idea.  Liberal looniness is energizing the GOP base, disenchanting the unaffiliated voters, and amazingly kicking the GOP leadership into offense (which is surely no small feat).

        Thank you Bill Ritter!  Thank you Nancy Pelosi!  It seems the only thing that will save the GOP is YOU GUYS!!

          1. …and your time is running out to pull the rug out from under our troops before there’s peace and stability and your silly little party crumbles.  That’s why your party’s left-wing (though sizeable) fringe is doing sit-ins in various congressional offices and clamoring for more anti-war goodies.  But all you get in return is insults from guys like Rep. Obey and mitch-slappings in the Senate.  You don’t have the votes for your cut and run House appropriations bill and the President is having his way with this war.  Tell me where you’ve had progress.  Tell me where your left-wing agenda has made strides.  It hasn’t because it’s not politically viable.

            1. I’m not a Dem, which you’d know if you paid attention. Of course your posts show that you do not pay attention – to anything but what fits your preconceived notions.

              And – you’ll learn this, youngster, now that you are somewhat in the real world – that two months of anything – war, politics, what have you – is nowhere near long enough to measure progress.

              You’re an amusing cheerleader for the christianist-dominated GOP, but an insightful analyst you’re not.

        2. but it’s Friday, and I actually have some time to “mitch-slap” you.

          You are like the little A.D.D. kid who has forgotten to take his Ritalin for a few days.  You keep hoping that your imaginary friend will actually appear in reality to keep you company, all real people having moved away from you in fear.

          The fallacious ‘unpopularity’ of the war?  Perhaps in comparison to the president’s popularity rating, but certainly not in comparison to anything else! 

          “When the dems actually get something done?”  Like what?  Like win back the U.S. House? The U.S. Senate?  The Colorado House, Senate, Governor’s office?

          Keep chatting with your imaginary friend.  S/he probably agrees with everything you say.  You’re insufferable now; you will be intolerable in after the ’08 elections.

          1. Is that a cent-sign or, more likely, a hammer and sickle? 

            “You are like the little A.D.D. kid who has forgotten to take his Ritalin for a few days.  You keep hoping that your imaginary friend will actually appear in reality to keep you company, all real people having moved away from you in fear.”

            I just have to ask, what are you talking about?  That sounds a little cryptic to me.  But I’m a simple guy and so I’m probably just missing the real hard-hitting message of that most eloquent post. 

        3. You know, in order to really be taken seriously when you say things like,

          “Your caucus is miserably split on the war while the GOP is surprisingly united despite the fallacious ‘unpopularity’ of the war.  Ritter’s union veto is causing all sorts of discontent with liberal activists and Comrades Gordon and Tupu laid an egg with their ridiculous anti-war resolution.”

          These are all issues that you personally disagree with.  Fine.  But us looney liberals are all for it.  When it comes to the war, it is the Senate Dems who need a bitch slap. BUT  I do not know one liberal or even one Democrat who supports the war. 

          You are self-medicating yourself on this one.  As usual.

          AND when you say,

          “Most people who showed up to protest were actually IN FAVOR of supporting our troops”

          The only time people bring this up is when they having nothing intelligent to say.  You got nothing.

            1. please go into Dobby’s office and take him by the wrist, and walk him up and down the quad a few times ?  I think he’s overstimulated again.  Too many fruit roll ups.

      1. I don’t really consider a bunch of scandal-mongering lefties trying to claw at the Constitution to be a mitch-slapping.  A mitch-slapping is when the Democrats win cloture, finally, on an anti-war resolution but then lose their resolution AND get beat on a Republican pro-war amendment.  THAT’S a mitch-slapping!

        As far the this AG hoo-ha…

        The president can fire federal attornies whenever and for whatever reason he so desires.  Period.  Full stop.  End of story.  It doesn’t matter if it was to help Karl Rove’s friend or if they were simply bad lawyers.  It doesn’t matter.  Just like Fitzmas, you guys are scraping away at something that simply isn’t there.  Because the only way you can win elections is by scandal-mongering (remember when you used America’s hang-ups about homosexuality a la Mark Foley to win last year?) you have to invent some scandal to win.  It’s just that the GOP has always demured and offered apology after apology for stuff that needed no apology.  It’s refreshing to see the new GOP coming out fighting on this and Peter Pace’s obviously true comments on the immorality of homosexuality.  So for some time we’ve been right on the issues and America’s agreed.  But we’ve always rolled over on the ‘scandals.’  That’s changing and it spells very good news for the Republican Party.

        Happy scandal-mongering!

        1. More self-medicating?  Man, you would defend ANYTHING that your party does.  Regardless of what it was.  Either that, or you are one of those pathetic “devil’s advocate” bloggers.  Not sure which.

        2. not a repeat of your first post. As Phoenix Rising showed, Gonzalez lied to Congress under oath. And as I said, you can not fire anyone for any old reason – the Constitution is not the be-all and end-all of it.

          Now, address those points or concede defeat like an honest man.

        3. ..he should?

          These firings are breaking new ground in terms of when and why. 

          And the reason Repubs have “rolled over” on the scandals is two fold: Almost all scandals are Republican, and the public is fed up with them.

          Happy losing.

    3. In the New York Times article on this story, McConnell is quoted as saying,”It is clear now that the majority of the Senate opposes a deadline for the withdrawal of troops.” This is the 2nd funniest thing I’ve read all day (next to the good doctor’s attempt to sniff out communists on Coloradopols) for two reasons:

      1)Yes, thank you Mitch. I could have guessed this fact by the headline on the article. Apparently, when more senators vote  against an issue than for it, this means the senate opposes it (who knew?!). But I’m glad the Senate minority leader took time out of his busy day to explain how the senate works to a New York Times reporter.

      2)A majority of the Senate didn’t actually oppose it. It takes 51 votes for a majority, Professor McConnell only got 50. 

  6. Check out Valerie Plame’s testimony this morning at Firedoglake.com. She was covert, working on WMD and she was exposed by Bush operatives. A serious breach of national security, and exposes more lies that has cost our great country billions in treasure, thousands in lives. Sick and pathetic.

    1. 1) The CIA-vetted facts (by current CIA director Gen. “wiretapper” Hayden, no less) say that:
        * Plame was covert
        * Plame was covered by the IIPA
        * Plame was working on Iranian and Iraqi WMD issues
        * Plame’s cover had not been blown prior to the Novak article.
      2) Plame did *not* recommend her husband for the CIA mission.
        * A junior CIA operative who knew of Plame’s husband, and another co-worker did the initial recommendations.
        * Her supervisor (DDO?) asked her to put together a briefing e-mail – which e-mail has been taken out of context as the recommendation from Plame
        * Plame was asked to bring her husband in for an interview, and to introduce him – but she then left.
        * Plame had no authority to send her husband.
        * Plame didn’t want her husband to go, because it would mean their 2yr. old twins being without either parent for most of the day.
        * The SSCI (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence) report that implicated Plame twisted the testimony of the junior CIA operative who did the initial recommendation; that operative created a memo begging for a follow-up hearing to clear the air, but it was never acknowledged by the SSCI.
      3) Any inadvertent disclosure of classified information should have generated a report to the WH Information Security officer.  No reports were generated even after it was revealed that Plame was covert, nor has any disciplinary action been taken against any WH official for that disclosure.
      4) To the current WH Information Security officer’s knowledge, no declassification – which had to come through his office before going to the WH – ever took place.
      5) No investigation EVER took place within the White House, according to the Office of Security.

      The hearing is ongoing, but it’s pretty grim on the GOP side.

      1. It sounds like the Republican Noise Machine have been making up their own facts, once again.  What a surprise.

        Liars, fucking Republican shill liars. 

          1. “mother”, but I deleted it.  Didn’t want to cause swooning of tender eyes. 

            It is like something out of a fiction story.  Two years of hearing about how she wasn’t REALLY covert, yadda yadda.  I suppose now we will hear from Shill O’Really, Lintball, and all of the other liers how Plame lied on the stand. 

            If there is a juding God and the commandment about not lying is a basis for that God to work from, there is going to be so much combustion going on when these guys die!

      3. 1d) Who was it that Novak said “leaked” Wilson’s relationship?

        Also for 1-the-rest, I call bullshit, mostly because even if it were vetted and true, we wouldn’t be talking about it on an internet blog.  No one would know the truth.  Therefore, no one DOES know the truth. 

        1. From MSNBC story:

          “the word “covert” also has a legal definition requiring recent foreign service and active efforts to keep someone’s identity secret. Critics of Fitzgerald’s investigation said Plame did not meet that definition for several reasons and said that’s why nobody was charged with the leak.”

          If this is not true, why hasn’t anyone been charged with the crime of outing a CIA agent?

          Answer to Yokel:  Richard Armitage?

          1. I listened to some segments of VP’s claims, under oath.  She addresses the issue very directly and said that she was, indeed, a covert agent.  That she worked mostly at CIA headquarters but was in the field periodically.  The CIA considered her covert (regardless of Rush, etc.)

            It appears that up to five individuals were leaking this information, of course, all looking upstream at Rove. 

            OUtting a CIA agent is treason.  While I’m not suggesting a hanging, a nice impeachment (or sudden resignation) would be appropriate.

                1. but it doesn’t seem like the prosecutor is:

                  “I do not expect to file any further charges,” Fitzgerald said. “We’re all going back to our day jobs.” 3-07-07

                  If he’s going home, who will be prosecuting the leakers?

              2. As SR posted in another topic, it does seem that she meets the definition.  I also rather trust her to know whether or not she is, she’ no dummy.

                1. it’s clear she considered herself covert, but she seems to defer questions about the legal definition with , “I’m not a lawyer” and stated no one told her she fit the definition of covert under IIPA. 

                  I get the impression from several things I’ve read that this law has never been tested in a court action, and so there is a lack of clarity about it.  This may be why Fitzgerald isn’t proceeding with further investigations or indictments. 

                    1. and if outed, we’ll have to go under deep cover. It still might not qualify as legally “covert”, but it may qualify as “undercover” or “HUB”.  (Hiding under bed)

              3. The IIPA requires that an agent be covert, and that she have been overseas on missions at some point during the five years preceding the disclosure.  The CIA acknowledged that she was covert, and Plame added that she had been overseas on missions within the past five years (note: not just the five years prior to her outing, but five years prior to last week – which is a much more recent timeframe and indicates she was still active as a NOC).

                Again, it’s not just Plame’s word – Gen. Hayden approved the statement that she was covert at the time, and also briefed Plame on what she was allowed to say.  The CIA is the agency responsible for maintaining the classification levels of its agents’ information; they are the only authority (a) necessary and (b) capable of determining the covert status of an agent.  Critics like Yokel want to question this; in a compartmentalized security system, the classifying agency is the only agency that knows about its secrets.  One of the great unknown mysteries about this affair is just who leaked Plame’s status to the Armitage/Cheney/Libby/Rove cabal?  It’s possible Armitage might have known – Plame was rumored to be in the process of transferring to State, either for official cover purposes or to take a job at INR – but it’s never been answered.

          2. No-one has answered the question of whether or not Plame’s covert status was declassified by the President, who has the authority to do so (disgusting though such an act would be).  It’s also possible, though not legally clear, that VP Cheney could also have that authority; he has the authority to classify, but it’s not specifically stated that he has the reverse authority.  If Bush(/Cheney?) declassified Plame’s identity and told Libby et al to go after her, then it’s not a technical violation of the IIPA.

            The other reason is, the onus under the IIPA falls on the person who actually knew the person’s covert status and also had security clearance themselves.  With the obstruction of justice that occured, a prosecutor would have a hard if not impossible time determining who exactly had knowledge of her status; no hard evidence equals no case.  (As an example of this, take the CU “rape” scandal; when no case was brought by the Boulder DA’s office, the outcry took it up to the state AG’s office, who also declined to bring charges – not because nothing happened, but because the case evidence was too weak to sustain in court.)  In this case, all the potential defendants have claimed they didn’t know she was covert and in the DO section of the CIA; this is almost certainly false, but it’s hard to prosecute with no co-operating officials.

        2. “If she really was, no-one would know…”

          And then of course you turn around and say “the CIA should have told them she was covert so that they wouldn’t do it!”

          We know, because the only way to get a prosecution started on offenses of the IIPA is for the CIA to file a complaint with the Justice Department.  Does this sound familiar?  Of course it does!  The CIA filed that exact complaint after Plame was outed.  In their complaint, they (the people who maintain the classified status of NOCs working for them) state as a matter of fact that their covert, non-official cover agent had her cover blown through the press; further investigation revealed that Armitage, Rove, Libby and possibly others all contacted the press to disclose and discuss Plame’s name and occupation.

          And, BTW, since her covert status hadn’t been officially recinded after Armitage’s leak, it was still considered classified information; confirmation or repetition of classified information is still considered a violation of our nation’s laws, including the IIPA.

  7. http://littledemocra…

    Apparently this is supposed to make you proud to be a Democrat.  With whiz-bang bolts of big government nannyism the author aims to convince kids why being a Democrat is the only thing to be…

    “Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like mommy does.”

    “Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like mommy does.”

    “Democrats make sure all children can go to school, just like mommy does.”

    A couple observations…

    When I vote I’m not looking for a mommy, I’m looking for effective leadership to protect the individual’s right to freedom.  And, somehow, I don’t think I’m alone in that.

    Why do I imagine Jimmy Carter getting up at the DNC here in Denver and reading this book to the most raucus of cheering from liberal delegates?  Only feeble little kids can possibly find this stuff remotely interesting.  Meanwhile, in Minneapolis, the grown up party will be talking about ways to keep America free–the free market and a country free from fanatical Muslims seeking to kill Americans by exploiting the opportunities we provide all peoples in America.

    You’ve got the freedom party and the mommy party.  That’s the choice voters will have in 2008. 

      1. Patriot Act…Illegal Wiretaps…..Guantanamo….torture…..outright kidnapping…suspending habeus corpus….Oh wait,  none of that matters in the “mind” of DRGLQ. To the extreme brainwashed like DRGLQ, there is simply no critical thinking…just cheerleading for thugs.

  8. Accused of hitting a child or being found by a state district court judge of defrauding an elderly woman who suffered from mental illness out of her last will and testament while working for as a council-aide on neighborhood issues?  At least that guy didn’t make the ballot in District 8.

  9. Lying to Congress has become a Republican principle:

    Revelations about White House involvement in the firing of the U.S. Attorneys means that the testimony of top Justice Department officials to Congress was fundamentally false. And everyone knows that now. As The Washington Post reports:

    Administration officials say they are braced for a new round of criticism today from lawmakers who may feel misled by recent testimony from Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and William E. Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general. Several Democrats have called in recent days for Gonzales to resign.
    Lying to Congress is what this administration generally — and the DOJ specifically — has done continuously. They lied to Congress about the FBI’s use of NSLs in order to induce re-authorization of the Patriot Act, and — now that those lies are exposed — they are now forced to retract those statements and change their false testimony made under oath. Alberto Gonzales made repeated false statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the state of the President’s eavesdropping activities, some of which he had to retract and some of which he still has not. And, of course, the false statements made over the years to the Congress by the administration regarding Iraq are literally too numerous to chronicle.

    None of these acts occur in isolation. They are all part of the broader view of the Bush administration that the President’s power cannot be constrained by the law or by the Congress. They believe they have the right to lie to Congress about their behavior, even though lying to Congress is, as Atrios noted today, a felony.

    It’s so vital to note that this Republican belief in the right to lie to Congress has deep roots back in the Reagan administration and, even before that, in the Nixon administration. I recommended this once before but I really urge you to watch this 1987 PBS documentary by Bill Moyers called The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis. There are multiple clips from the Iran-Contra scandal and the serial, proud lying to Congress and the American people in which top Reagan officials engaged.

    Oliver North became a beloved hero among Republicans because of how proudly he admitted to misleading the Congress. The North footage is just striking. It begins at 5:20 of the video, and it is really worth watching because his boastful tone cannot be conveyed by the transcript, but this an exchange North had with House counsel John Nields that made North a superstar among the Republican faithful:

    NORTH: I will tell you right now, counsel, and to all the members here gathered, that I misled the Congress.

    NIELDS: At that meeting?

    NORTH: At that meeting.

    NIELDS: Face to face?

    NORTH: Face to face.

    NIELDS: You made false statements to them about your activites in support of the Contras?

    NORTH: I did.

    North then goes on to “justify” why lying to Congress was the patriotic thing to do. Days later, North’s loyal secretary, Fawn Hall, described the prevailing ethos at the Reagan National Security Council this way: “Sometimes you have to go above the written law.”

    All of that lying began with President Reagan himself, who, exactly at the time when the U.S was defying its own embargo on Iran by offering weapons to the Ayatollah Kholmeni in exchange for the release of U.S. hostages, was beating his chest with tough-sounding — and totally false — proclamations like this: “Let me further make it plain to the assassins in Beirut and their accomplices wherever they may be, that the U.S. will never make concessions to terrorists.”

    In November, 1986, Reagan went on national television and issued this flat-out and totally false denial:

    The charge has been made that the U.S. has shipped weapons to Iran as ransom payment for the release of American hostages in Lebanaon — that the U.S. undercut its allies and secretly violated American policy against trafficking with terrorists. Those charges are utterly false.
    Reagan officials Eliot Abrams and John Poindexter were both convicted of charges arising out of their lying to Congress, and both were given highly sensitive jobs in the Bush administration, where Abrams remains today. Obviously, not only is lying to Congress not considered a disqualifying flaw by the Bush administration, it is considered a virtue, an exercise of a legitimate right on the part of the President. The heroes of the Republican movement in the 1980s were heroes not despite their lying to Congress, but because of it. It’s considered heroic and noble.

    Of course, the reason that lying to Congress is a felony is because Congress is composed of the representatives of the American people, and when executive branch officials lie to Congress, they are lying to the country. They subvert the entire constitutional order by preventing the American people from exercising overisight over the executive branch through their representatives in Congress, and it turns the President into an unchecked, unaccountable ruler. That is precisely why lying to Congress is considered to be virtuous and an entitlement by this administration and the movement which spawned it (the truly bizarre demands for Lewis Libby’s pardon further reflect not merely an indifference, but this same admiration, for those who lie in pursuit of The Right-Wing Cause).

    Illegal behavior — in the form of, among other things, continuous and deliberate deceit of the Congress — is pervasive at the highest levels of the Bush Justice Department and it has plainly become a central part of the Republican ethos. It’s become a plank in their ideology, literally. Is it really necessary even to make the case as to why we cannot allow that, and must begin — now — enforcing the law and imposing consequences for this rampant law-breaking?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

171 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!