At least that’s how I read this update on the Secretary Jackson kerfluffle:
Think Progress » Jackson Fabricated the Entire Story, Spokesperson Claims, Contradicting Prior Response
A spokesperson for Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson has issued a second response to reports that Jackson publicly admitted cancelling a government contract with a business because the CEO was critical of President Bush. Dustee Tucker, a spokeswoman for Jackson, told the Dallas Business Journal Tuesday that Jackson’s comments at his April 28 speech were purely “anecdotal.”
Another hat-tip to Think Progress. I need to add them to my blogroll listing, ASAP.
(Additional thoughts, 5/10) By the way, there’s an easy way to resolve this, in terms of whether it was just a stupid partisan thuggish lie intended to push potential HUD contract applicants into supporting the GOP and Mr. Bush, or if it was an actual crime. We need to find the guy who lost the HUD contract at the last minute, if he exists.
Surely if this had happened to me, I’d be hopping mad and quite happy to go on national television to tell my part of the story. And I’d also be eager to testify before Congressional committees and in court — because this kind of partisan crap is unquestionably illegal.
Anyway, personally my money is on Jackson lying. Both with his idiotic gaffe and his even more inept handling of the crapstorm since it was revealed, he’s displaying the typical casual moronic incompetence as most Bush appointees. And if there’s one word by which historians will one day assess the entire Bush presidency, it will be "Liars."
He should still be forced to resign for even suggesting that this would be a right and proper way to award or deny HUD contracts. Drill just a little bit deeper and you’ll see why: He also said that in his belief, if he awarded a contract to someone who opposed Bush, that money would somehow end up funding Bush’s political opponents.
Now turn that around, and read between the lines. Jackson’s implied position is that HUD contract money can be diverted for political purposes, provided it’s in support of Bush and the GOP.
Yes, by all means an investigation is warranted, but it should not stop with just finding out whether one contractor got his contract killed for expressing opposition to Bush. A prosecutor needs to take this a step further and find out if there is a pattern of ongoing quid pro quo arrangements, whereby an awarded contract is followed by donations to the GOP and its causes.
This is quite possibly a two-fer, in terms of illegal behavior.
About Becca
Owner and proprietor of this here establishment
HUD Sec’y defense: “I’m a liar, not a crook!”
At least that’s how I read this update on the Secretary Jackson kerfluffle:
Another hat-tip to Think Progress. I need to add them to my blogroll listing, ASAP.
(Additional thoughts, 5/10) By the way, there’s an easy way to resolve this, in terms of whether it was just a stupid partisan thuggish lie intended to push potential HUD contract applicants into supporting the GOP and Mr. Bush, or if it was an actual crime. We need to find the guy who lost the HUD contract at the last minute, if he exists.
Surely if this had happened to me, I’d be hopping mad and quite happy to go on national television to tell my part of the story. And I’d also be eager to testify before Congressional committees and in court — because this kind of partisan crap is unquestionably illegal.
Anyway, personally my money is on Jackson lying. Both with his idiotic gaffe and his even more inept handling of the crapstorm since it was revealed, he’s displaying the typical casual moronic incompetence as most Bush appointees. And if there’s one word by which historians will one day assess the entire Bush presidency, it will be "Liars."
He should still be forced to resign for even suggesting that this would be a right and proper way to award or deny HUD contracts. Drill just a little bit deeper and you’ll see why: He also said that in his belief, if he awarded a contract to someone who opposed Bush, that money would somehow end up funding Bush’s political opponents.
Now turn that around, and read between the lines. Jackson’s implied position is that HUD contract money can be diverted for political purposes, provided it’s in support of Bush and the GOP.
Yes, by all means an investigation is warranted, but it should not stop with just finding out whether one contractor got his contract killed for expressing opposition to Bush. A prosecutor needs to take this a step further and find out if there is a pattern of ongoing quid pro quo arrangements, whereby an awarded contract is followed by donations to the GOP and its causes.
This is quite possibly a two-fer, in terms of illegal behavior.
About Becca
Owner and proprietor of this here establishment