Irony Alert

Almost seven years ago to the date:

“We are going to restore honor and dignity to the White House.” George W. Bush, 7/5/00.

Bonus irony alert:

“On the first hour of the first day, we will restore decency and integrity to the Oval Office. They will offer more lectures and legalisms and carefully worded denials. We offer another way, a better way, and a stiff dose of truth.” Dick Cheney, 8/2/00.

Cross posted (with a hearty LOL) from AoF

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Irony Alert

  1. alrudder says:

    “I don’t believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own, unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair.”

    — George W. Bush, writing in his autobiography, A Charge to Keep

    This Question was asked of GWB by a reporter in February–

    Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, we’ve now learned through sworn testimony that at least three members of your administration, other than Scooter Libby, leaked Valerie Plame’s identity to the media. None of these three is known to be under investigation. Without commenting on the Libby trial, then, can you tell us whether you authorized any of these three to do that, or were they authorized without your permission?

    THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks, Pete. I’m not going to talk about any of it.

  2. alrudder says:

    Oh, credit and for the above comments

  3. Darrell Prows says:

    How far the mighty have fallen! Please note that what was once the watchword of the predecessor Administration to our current bunch of political perverts was “plausible deniability”. When Ronnie and Daddy had their boys out there subverting everything they could get their hands on there was at least the acknowledgement of a need to prepare in advance for the possibility of being found out. In other words, there was still belief in the concept of potential consequences.

    Now, everything is straight “in your face”. Sure, nobody wants to be embarrassed by being put on T.V. doing the perp walk, but that’s worst case. G. Gordon Liddy took his lumps, did his time, and held his mud. Ollie North had to play the Court game from beginning to end, and needed a “technicality” to slide out of trouble (though he undoubtedly believed someone was always waiting in the wings with some from of eventual relief). Libby just flipped the world the bird and always looked like they were playing us for the suckers they believe us to be.

    It’s actually very sobering that there is this obvious conviction that the world contains no power able to compel them to answer for their actions. Lord knows what brands of skullduggery remain unused in their bag of tricks.

  4. Ginny Cotts says:

    I believe yesterday was the aniversary of “Bring ’em on”.

    Of course they all have said enough to hang the lot. We just need to keep the momentum on this going – given the track record they probably won’t be able to keep from stepping in it again- and maybe they will follow Nixon. Resign rather than face impeachment.

    Of course this all leaves the question of who will end up in the WH and as VP. Maybe we should just get Dick out, leave the chimp in to remind voters NOT to vote GOP and bet that there couldn’t be anyone as bad as Shooter who becomes VP.

  5. Darrell Prows says:

    Ginny: If they both went together, wouldn’t it be Pelosi and who ever she chose for V.P.?

  6. Ginny Cotts says:

    The problem with that is the IF. Getting both of them at the same time would be improbable as I read it last year. If it went to Pelosi because she is next in line, I am not sure what the constitution says about the VP. The line goes from the Speaker to the Cabinet and I can’t locate my copy to check that. Problem I recall vaguely is that the chain of succession is to the Presidency. It may be that Pelosi would be able to choose the VP.

    Personally, I think Cheney is the one who really needs to be kicked out – even though Bush has done way too much to violate the Constitution and failing to uphold the laws passed by Congress. The necessary GOP Senators are unlikely to vote for the Impeachment of Bush. Cheney is another story. They might see it as a means to pretend to respond to the corruption, etc. and improve their chances for ’08. Assuming Shooter is not as much of an iron hand, has everyone scared to move against him, as has been contended.

    The biggest issue is really whether the American public will harass their representatives and make enough noise that something is done.

    Given the whole re-election issue and who is going to be trying to clean up the mess, the Dems may do some amount of swordplay with the GOP just to show that they are trying and the GOP is obstructing everything. They need a bigger majority to be able to get things done and there are enough GOP senators vs Dems up for re-election to do that.

    There may be something to be said for Conyers, Waxman, Leahy and any others to get what they can and leave it to the American Voters to give the verdict. As Marci Wheeler pointed out, this is different from Watergate and Monica. The evidence had been obtained. We don’t have all of what is there and needed. If they keep refusing and the AG lets them… Personally another stupid step in their own shtuff that is likely to backlash in 11/08.

    As Hart clearly laid it out in the previous post, ‘evil will out’. You can’t tell that many lies for that long and not find yourself tripping over them eventually.

    My other concern is what the Dems are going to promise the voters. Clearly ‘Restoring honor and dignity’ would be a poor choice.

  7. Andy Witmyer says:

    I usually love irony, but in this instance, it’s bittersweet.

  8. Darrell Prows says:

    25th Amendment provides for replacement of a V.P. by Presidential nomination and majority confirmation by both houses.