Gonzo is Gone!

[maineman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/w...gin&adxnnlx=1188217138-0Lj+3QAR1WKCQz833O2DAw

about fuckin' time!

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/w...gin&adxnnlx=1188217138-0Lj+3QAR1WKCQz833O2DAw

about fuckin' time!

Oh goody--another round of "hearings" to select a new one. :yawn:

 

[maineman]

Oh goody--another round of "hearings" to select a new one. :yawn:

Bush will probably put up a nondescript bureaucrat to avoid any controversy. He is really a complete lameduck at this point and even he must know it at some level.

Good news: the long national nightmare is just about over.

 

[CSM]

Good news: the long national nightmare is just about over.

To be replaced by another....

 

[dilloduck]

Bush will probably put up a nondescript bureaucrat to avoid any controversy. He is really a complete lameduck at this point and even he must know it at some level.

Good news: the long national nightmare is just about over.

National nightmare

Federal attorneys been driving down your street with sirens blaring ? Most Americans have no idea who this guy is and their lives have not been affected by him one iota. If you are expecting a big change in any policy currently in place be prepared to be disappointed again. Who are you going after next ?

 

[mattskramer]

Bush will probably put up a nondescript bureaucrat to avoid any controversy. He is really a complete lameduck at this point and even he must know it at some level.

Good news: the long national nightmare is just about over.

Is it really a nightmare to know that congress investigated the firing of 8 attorneys? I’d simply call it typical partisan political fighting. It was funny to see the defense holler “executive privilege” so often. Yes, I understand why we need executive privilege but at the same time I think that on such an issue as firings, the executive branch should have opened up. If it had nothing to hide, why was it so secretive? Anyway, I’m glad that it is over. I hope that Bush will select someone more open and forthright but that is probably wishful thinking on my part.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Is it really a nightmare to know that congress investigated the firing of 8 judges? I’d simply call it typical partisan political fighting. It was funny to see the defense holler “executive privilege” so often. Yes, I understand why we need executive privilege but at the same time I think that on such an issue as firings, the executive branch should have opened up. If it had nothing to hide, why was it so secretive? Anyway, I’m glad that it is over. I hope that Bush will select someone more open and forthright but that is probably wishful thinking on my part.

Bush repeatedly offered to allow all his people to talk all the Democrats wanted. Just not under oath, having seen how that worked so well for Libby.

Exactly why was THAT unacceptable?

 

[mattskramer]

Bush repeatedly offered to allow all his people to talk all the Democrats wanted. Just not under oath, having seen how that worked so well for Libby.

Exactly why was THAT unacceptable?

Why didn’t he “allow” them to testify under oath if there was nothing to hide? As for Libby, I think that he was an embarrassment too. If you don’t recall, you should say that you do not recall. Otherwise, you should answer the question with what you know. It is as simple as that.

Oh. Before you start ad homonym attacks calling me a liberal and saying that I would not have held Democrats to such a standard, let me say that I certainly would. Clinton was an embarrassment too with the Paula Jones and Monica mess. I expect everyone, especially those in high office, to be honest and straightforward.

 

[maineman]

Federal attorneys been driving down your street with sirens blaring ? Most Americans have no idea who this guy is and their lives have not been affected by him one iota. If you are expecting a big change in any policy currently in place be prepared to be disappointed again. Who are you going after next ?

this has little to do with "policy".

and in answer to your question: whoever starts rising about the rest of the field in the republican primary campaign.

 

[maineman]

Bush repeatedly offered to allow all his people to talk all the Democrats wanted. Just not under oath, having seen how that worked so well for Libby.

Exactly why was THAT unacceptable?

duh.

if they are not under oath, then their lies would not be perjury.

wow. I cannot believe you asked that question!

 

[mattskramer]

duh.

if they are not under oath, then their lies would not be perjury.

wow. I cannot believe you asked that question!

Not only that but with respect to the firings of the attorneys, could Bush have instructed his witnesses to go ahead and answer the questions and to not fall onto “executive privilege”? I mean that he could have told them not to testify under oath but to still be forthright and answer the questions. Refusing to answer questions under oath and relying on “executive privilege” in order to avoid answering uncomfortable questions turned the investigation into a clown show.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not only that but with respect to the firings of the attorneys, could Bush have instructed his witnesses to go ahead and answer the questions and to not fall onto “executive privilege”? I mean that he could have told them not to testify under oath but to still be forthright and answer the questions. Refusing to answer questions under oath and relying on “executive privilege” in order to avoid answering uncomfortable questions turned the investigation into a clown show.

What are you babbling about? Bush offered to allow the Congress to ask anything ( within the specific scope of the issue) and his aides would be required to answer.

Now if you mean Bush should just allow Congress to go on a fishing expedition about anything and everything, your high.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Originally Posted by maineman View Post
duh.

if they are not under oath, then their lies would not be perjury.

wow. I cannot believe you asked that question!

ahh so you have no problem with President Bush ordering Congressional aides and Congressmen to testify under oath what they know about leaks and other illegal activity? And they should not be able to claim that as members of the legislature they are protected from such an effort by the executive, right?

 

[dilloduck]

duh.

if they are not under oath, then their lies would not be perjury.

wow. I cannot believe you asked that question!

I cant' believe you missed the whole point. Congress doesn't care about the truth--they want to indict and convict people.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I cant' believe you missed the whole point. Congress doesn't care about the truth--they want to indict and convict people.

Yup, Bush should demand all members of Congress and all staff be required to testify under oath as to their activities regarding any leaks from Congress. Why ever would Congress object? Well unless they have something to hide.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ohh I forget, Bush also should be able to require testimony under oath on why any staff member was fired from any Congressional staff. I mean that is about what the dems want in regards why a President can fire his appointees when he wants.

 

[maineman]

ahh so you have no problem with President Bush ordering Congressional aides and Congressmen to testify under oath what they know about leaks and other illegal activity? And they should not be able to claim that as members of the legislature they are protected from such an effort by the executive, right?

why do you bother to ask me questions, when you have me on "ignore" and can't read my replies?

 

[maineman]

Ohh I forget, Bush also should be able to require testimony under oath on why any staff member was fired from any Congressional staff. I mean that is about what the dems want in regards why a President can fire his appointees when he wants.

yeah...that makes sense.... firing a legislative aide is equally important as firing a US attorney.

 

[Edward]

Bush repeatedly offered to allow all his people to talk all the Democrats wanted. Just not under oath, having seen how that worked so well for Libby.

Exactly why was THAT unacceptable?

Because Congress gets to set the terms of congressional hearings into the Executive Department and not the President. If Congress wants the truth and wants to be able to hold people accountable if it is determined that they lied to Congress after they have testified than they should insist that the testimony being offered be under oath. The whole reason for the ability of Congress to hold people in contempt of Congress and to even do so without having to go through the Courts (Congress created the statutory contempt of Congress provisions) is the ability of the people to get answers from their neighbors who are serving in Congress about what is going on in their government. If the President told a judge that he would allow "all his people to talk all the Courts wanted. Just not under oath" he would be laughed at and that is what the Congress did. They chose to exercise their constitutional authority and to exert themselves yet people get upset by this because they hate the idea that Congress will exercise its constitutional responsibilities.

 

[jillian]

Ohh I forget, Bush also should be able to require testimony under oath on why any staff member was fired from any Congressional staff. I mean that is about what the dems want in regards why a President can fire his appointees when he wants.

A U.S. attorney is not a "staff member"... your guy seems to have forgotten that they aren't GOP operatives.

Funny how y'all hate checks and balances when it's your side being checked.