Politics Thursday: Investi-Gate: 1,000+ Vs. 15

I'm curious what folks think of the numbers in this paragraph from Investi-Gate:

"This is not the approach the GOP Congress took when Bill Clinton occupied the Oval Office. Since 1997, the House Government Reform committee has issued over 1000 subpoenas related to allegations of misconduct involving the Clinton administration or the Democratic party—compared to just 15 related to Bush administration or Republican abuses. The seemingly endless probes of the Clinton administration turned up little in the way of corruption, and stymied the Republican revolution: In the 1998 midterm elections, with the Lewinsky scandal in the news, Democrats picked up seats in Congress."

1,000 vs. 15. That's all I'm really curious about. Assuming those numbers are accurate, why do you think they are they so one sided? Those numbers really jumped out at me more than anything else in this piece.

Comments

a question of focus

The writer believes the myth that Bush somehow lied before going to war and that there is justification for investigating it. If that's what he wants the subpoenas for then, no, he's not likely to get them.

NOT what he believes

Hmm, no one mentioned lying about the war until you did, Greg.Hard to sleep with Jacob Marley rattling around, isn't it?The writer may have meant (since I don't know for sure and you don't either) that the executive branch always needs investigating and oversight no matter who is in it. There will always be fraud, waste and theft.The fact that the ratio is so skewed suggests, strongly, that Congress in the 1990s was too concerned with slinging mud and in the 00s wasn't concerned enough with being good stewards of our money or national self-respect.Or, to blame the liberal media, press "2" now.

Re:NOT what he believes

from the article: "The tragedy is that a full accounting of the Bush years is what the country most needs, to put an end to the cycle of lies and cover-ups, and perhaps even fix some disastrous policies, from Medicare to Iraq."

non-specific

It just says lies. There were lots of other lies, not necessarily about the war. Cheney lied about torture, so did Bush. That's on the record."Ebeeeeeeeennnnneeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzeeeeeeeeeeeee eer ... "

Re:non-specific

Read the article Chuck.

There are a lot of reasons Marley might be knocking at my door but arguing for Democracy won't be one of them.

grammar

I did read it. The sentence mentions "lies" and "Iraq" not "lies about Iraq." It does reference that Bush was told that his WMD intelligence was bad but he continued to use it.Neat trick, everyone, and I'd like to call attention to what Greg has done here.You're not arguing for democracy, Greggles. You're arguing that the war in Iraq is good and should continue, regardless of the cost of money and human life.If you were arguing for democracy it wouldn't matter what method it came by, right? The fact that several general staff officers, civilian defense leaders (current and retired) have all said that the peaceful democratic solution in Iraq is diplomatic, not military.Can I count you as a fan of rapid withdrawl from Iraq then, given your passion for democracy?
       

My take on it

What I would make of that paragraph is that the Republican party would engage in any squandering of resources to attack their political opponents, while turning a blind eye to the corruption within the Republican party. But we've already seen indications of that; consider the foaming-at-the-brain hysterical attacks on Clinton when the WTC towers came down, even though he had tried to install an effective anti-terrorism program, and Bush simply ignored what was in place and failed to fund the program.

Syndicate content