Bush Administration Innocent Again

|

The Bush Administration continues to be perfect–it never admits to having been wrong about anything. For example, an internal investigation at the Department of Health and Human services finds that threatening federal bureaucrats who wanted to reveal that the new seniors drug benefit program is going to cost between $100 and $200 billion more than President Bush says it is broke no laws.

"It sounds as though the Bush administration examined itself and found it did nothing wrong," says Representative Pete Stark (D-Calif) in the New York Times.

If it's true that it's not against the law to mislead Congress, we've really got to change the law or the Administration. In fact, why not both?

NEXT: Netting an Election

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “If it’s true that it’s not against the law to mislead Congress, we’ve really got to change the law or the Administration. In fact, why not both?”

    Speaking of laws, that probably violated McCain-Feingold! 🙂

  2. Does the fact that they performed an internal investigation rule out the possiblity of any other investigations? I don’t see how it possibly could. Pete Stark is complaining that they investigated themselves, but what did he do to look into this?

  3. Wait a minute…it’s wrong to threaten gov’t employees so that they won’t tell Congress the truth, so that way, your bill will pass?

    Well, golly, gosh, who knew? Whatsa wrong with THAT? A li’l threatnin’ never hurt nobody! I mean, sure, this is pretty much the most dispicable thing they’ve done since, well, since a few days ago, but we should all just accept what the internal investigation found: that it’s OK to threaten people who might let out a certain truth, that you’re trying to suppress, in order to foist the biggest government welfare program in the past half-century on the taxpayers.

    Can it get any worse? I mean, what does he have to do? Murder someone on live national television?

    This is what gets me: POTUS is supposed to be the most “important” job in America, perhaps even in the world. Yet, if I did any one of the laundry list of horrible, unethical, crooked, evil, dastardly, FUCKED UP things that he’s done, I’d be tossed out of my job on my ass before I knew it. And my job, relatively speaking, isn’t nearly as “important” as POTUS. I’d venture to say there’s hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country that wouldn’t tolerate such behavior. Yet, the most important one gets away with the most unethical, bad-news shit. What’s wrong with this picture?

  4. Well Ron, hope you feel good voting for higher taxes and no social security reform.

  5. “Well Ron, hope you feel good voting for higher taxes and no social security reform”

    asshat.

  6. Everyone,

    I shouldn’t have to be telling you that corruption in government is not a new thing.

    Dimmy & joe,

    The “outrages” of Republican investigations of a Dem administration would not be applicable to investigations of a Republican administration. And, as we’ve seen numerous times, each party’s loved the independent counsel law when it could be used against the other — hence its use by Dems in the 80s and Reps in the 90s. Face it, neither party is concerned with principles or even consistency, at least not nearly as much as they’re concerned with getting and keeping power.

    Evan,

    Yep, if I had an employee give me a blowjob in my workplace, I’d be out on my heels too. The difference between me and the President is that I’m not in a position to do powerful people favors. Which is why the feminists stuck up for Clinton, and corporate cronies will stick up for Bush.

  7. Yes, it’s important to hew to the party line, no matter what !

  8. Matt: I think you’ve just pointed out that the country does appear to be once again between a rock and hard place.

  9. crimethink,
    What went on in the 80’s over Reagan was much different than what the Reps did to Clinton in the 90’s. The whole Arms for Hostages was real, and very big. The whole deal with Clinton was lying about a BJ in the Oval Office, after trying for years to nail him on bogus crap. Which also pails to the current situation with the Bush administration lack of ethics.

  10. “Ultimately, what you’re left with is a rejection of the idea that empirical research can discover the truth.”

    I think joe and TNR are failing to distinguish political grandstanding from epistemology. This is nothing new for any party. How many times does Keynes have to be proven wrong before the left accepts his limitations? You should be able to just say, “Uh, Japan,” and silence all of the demand stimulus fanatics, but somehow that doesn’t happen, either.

    The truth is that politicians aren’t allowed to take nuanced positions in public. If I have photographs of a standing machinery my intelligence says can be used for chem weapons production on the one hand, and I have Scott Ritter on the other hand saying something else, I may take the whole picture into account when making my decision. However, when the press demands to know why I ‘didn’t listen to Ritter’, what they are asking is why I didn’t do exactly what Ritter said instead of something else. The answer to that question will wind up making Ritter look bad. One could argue that this is unfair, but one could also point out that Ritter made very strong statements in public that forced any disagreement with him to go this way.

    The same is true of any political interest defending a decision they have already made. Handing out goodies is not something that is politically possible for Dems to stop doing, therefore any economist or group of economists who suggests otherwise will be cricified on the ‘extremist’ tree, regardless of their Nobel credentials.

    It is simply not the case that the speech you see in public is the same as the actual decision making process when you are talking about politics.

  11. crimethink,
    What went on in the 80’s over Reagan was much different than what the Reps did to Clinton in the 90’s. The whole Arms for Hostages was real, and very big. The whole deal with Clinton was lying about a BJ in the Oval Office, after trying for years to nail him on bogus crap. Which also pails to the current situation with the Bush administration lack of ethics.

  12. Evan, good rant. Feel better now?

    drf, what’s with the asshat remark? Personaly I prefer fuckwit.

    Everybody else,I was a very big Reagan-hater. Lots of people were but there was no traction against the teflon president. Clinton was Buba-ishly teflonic, too. And now we have to put up with this, this fuckwit?

  13. And the beauty of the American system is:

    Ron is right and so is Matt Cromer!

    The current situation is bad, and so is the only alternative. Ahh, glorious choices. I’m becoming very Zen about the whole thing.

  14. JL, most Keyensians are not absolutists or fanatics.

    TNR does a good of showing that there is more to the admin’s dissing of science and research than favoritism, that there is actually an intellectual (anti-intellectual) pedegree to this behavior. Worth reading, everybody.

  15. Fred: “fuckwit” – excellent. very good. warren’s addendum is “fucktard”. the suffex “-tard” is really good for insults. viz: the elizabethan “ard” as a pejorative ending, “spaniard”…

    cheerio,
    drf

  16. So Martha Stewart lies to the American people (via federal investigators + a sin of “commission”) and goes to prison. George Bush lies to the American people (via Congressional investigators + a sin of “damn well knowing omission”), and then runs for re-election. Puhhhhhhlease.

  17. During the 1990s, the Republicans gave independent investigations of the executive branch such a bad name that we’re very reluctant now to initiate that sort of thing. The result is we end up with internal investigations instead and they can get away with all sorts of stuff.

  18. Interesting take, Dimmy. Those of you willing to admit Ken Starr might have done something wrong:

    Given the GOP’s longstanding support for a “strong executive,” and opposition to the Independent Counsel statute, do you think his off the rails abuses were a deliberate attempt to discredit the law?

  19. i think his abuses are a deliberate attempt at thinly-veiled tyranny.

    does anyone doubt that the sense of political self for bush, cheney and the remainder of the neocon lot does not include simple christian concepts like ‘weakness’ or ‘sin’ or ‘humility’? truly, i’m sure they imagine themselves politically incapable of such things — certainly their refusal to admit any wrongdoing of any type is testimony to the pathology. and when you aren’t bound by a feeling that you can easily do wrong, what is to prevent you from demanding absolute authority?

  20. It is a testament of the ethics of the top part of our administration. A few years back when Haliburton was found to have exaggerated positive financials only because it changed the auditing method, Cheney said it was ok since they didn’t break any laws.

    It is no wonder that our society is becoming a “grab as much as you can get away with” type of people.

  21. They’re so certain of their own rightness, and of the rightness of their political ideology, that they think they can judge the truth or error of a statement or idea by how closely it comports to that ideology and their own self interest. If the NSF says global warming is a threat, they must be wrong. If Scott Ritter says Iraq poses no WMD threat to the US, he must be an active agent for Saddam. If studies show that supply side tax cuts don’t reduce deficits, there must be something wrong with the methodology, or the researchers must have a political agenda. Ultimately, what you’re left with is a rejection of the idea that empirical research can discover the truth.

    TNR has a good piece on this phenomenon this week.

  22. “i think his abuses are a deliberate attempt at thinly-veiled tyranny.”

    Very well put. I can’t beleive that ol’ scowly face got away with that “Go fuck yourself” remark. And to think 50% of Americans polled like these guys.

    Lies, hypocrisy and boorish, crude remarks. Let that be the Bush II legacy. Just another cum stain on yet another blue dress.

  23. I hear a lot about the Bush admin never admitting it was wrong. Fair engough. However does anyone have any stats on how often past admins admitted they were wrong? Is this really an issue? What do we want, press conferences where admins go down some list and point out where they were wrong?

  24. We’re all doomed Cpt Manwaring

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.