SubpoenOWNED

[Shattered]

I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt, to see if he is capable of growing a little. If I'm just pissing in the wind, well, I'll just get a little damp.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I spent most of the afternoon with him and I am soaking wet

Got umbrella?

 

[red states rule]

I spent most of the afternoon with him and I am soaking wet

From sweating since you were backed into a corner all afternoon

 

[red states rule]

Got umbrella?

For him a sweatband and a pair of Depends

 

[Bullypulpit]

For him a sweatband and a pair of Depends

An almost witty reply...almost. But let's stay on topic here. Are you going to answer the questions I posed to you in <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=540874&postcount=47>#47</a> and <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=540875&postcount=48>#48</a>?

No puerile insults or cut-and-paste please. In your own words.

 

[Bullypulpit]

An almost witty reply...almost. But let's stay on topic here. Are you going to answer the questions I posed to you in <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=540874&postcount=47>#47</a> and <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=540875&postcount=48>#48</a>?

No puerile insults or cut-and-paste please. In your own words.

Red...? Glock...? Anyone...? (chirp...chirp...chirp...)

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well, since no one seems up to the challenge, I'll just add fuel to the fire.

It seems that on November 27, 2006, a mere 10 days before seven US attorneys were sacked, Alberto Gonzalez met with senior advisers to discuss those firings. Now, this contradicts his previous statements that he didn't know anything about the firings or what his underlings were doing with regard to those firings. Is his memory as faulty as Scooter's? I hope so, and with the same consequences.

 

[Annie]

Well, since no one seems up to the challenge, I'll just add fuel to the fire.

It seems that on November 27, 2006, a mere 10 days before seven US attorneys were sacked, Alberto Gonzalez met with senior advisers to discuss those firings. Now, this contradicts his previous statements that he didn't know anything about the firings or what his underlings were doing with regard to those firings. Is his memory as faulty as Scooter's? I hope so, and with the same consequences.

Bully, I've dislike Gonzales for a long time, for reasons you probably do not relate to. With that said, I tried to stick up for 'pleasure of the president', but with that comes responsibilities. So I'm going with this:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009496.php

At the same time, I do wonder if you and your buddies would do the same. I know that is hypothetical, since Democratic administrations are always staffed by the Best and the brightest.

 

[maineman]

From sweating since you were backed into a corner all afternoon

that is really quite funny. you never once were even able to answer a simple yes or no question.... if it isn't in one of your cut and paste newsbusters articles, you don't know WHAT to think!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, I've dislike Gonzales for a long time, for reasons you probably do not relate to. With that said, I tried to stick up for 'pleasure of the president', but with that comes responsibilities. So I'm going with this:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009496.php

At the same time, I do wonder if you and your buddies would do the same. I know that is hypothetical, since Democratic administrations are always staffed by the Best and the brightest.

Bill Buckley is, far and away, the sharpest tool in the conservative shed, unlike this current lot in the Bush administration. And I find myself in agreement regarding his assessment of this administration. As for the responsibilities incumbent upon the POTUS, Bush has fallen short of the mark there, as in many other things.

As for the White House being out of the loop, it remains to be seen whether or not Karl Rove was in the loop. The only way to do that is if he testifies, under oath. Which begs the question as to just why the White House is so set upon this course of stone-walling. As many here have pointed out, in their support of administration policies, if they've done nothing wrong, what have they to fear. The best way to clear the stench of wrong doing from the political stage is complete transparency. Even the merest hint of intransigence is enough to raise the specters of cover-ups and conspiracies.

Incompetence may not be a crime, but when the consequences of that incompetence erode confidence in the justice system and the federal government...when it reduces America's credibility around the world to nearly nothing...when it costs America in blood and treasure what it has cost us in Iraq...That incompetence, in my opinion, becomes maleficence. The incompetents must be made to bear the responsibility for their incompetence.

 

[Annie]

Bill Buckley is, far and away, the sharpest tool in the conservative shed, unlike this current lot in the Bush administration. And I find myself in agreement regarding his assessment of this administration. As for the responsibilities incumbent upon the POTUS, Bush has fallen short of the mark there, as in many other things.

Incompetence may not be a crime, but when the consequences of that incompetence erode confidence in the justice system and the federal government...when it reduces America's credibility around the world to nearly nothing...when it costs America in blood and treasure what it has cost us in Iraq...That incompetence, in my opinion, becomes maleficence. The incompetents must be made to bear the responsibility for their incompetence.

I'm not going to argue, just note that you did not address the last part of my post. While the liberals know that 'thinking' conservatives will not give a bye to the wrong things and will hammer away until there are those concessions; those same liberals never give in that wrongs are done in both camps.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I'm not going to argue, just note that you did not address the last part of my post. While the liberals know that 'thinking' conservatives will not give a bye to the wrong things and will hammer away until there are those concessions; those same liberals never give in that wrongs are done in both camps.

For me, dear lady, it is a given. Taking responsibility for one's actions is neither Republican nor Democrat, Liberal or Conservative. As human beings, it is possible for any of us, through ignorance or intent, to cause harm to others. To pretend otherwise is is pollyanish at best, delusional at worst, regardless of one's political affiliation or philosophy.

For those unwilling to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions, we have laws and the courts to enforce that responsibility. Those laws and courts, and officers of the courts, must function as impartially as humanly possible.

If any attempt was made by this Administration, or members of this Administration, to interfere with or subvert those functions, it must be rooted out, wherever the evidence may lead. And if found complicit in these efforts to undermine the justice system, they should step aside for those for whom loyalty to party and President is secondary to their oaths to support and defend the Constitution. If it turns out to be a "witch-hunt on the part of the Democrats, then shame on them. They should hand over their positions to those who will put loyalty to the Constitution and its institutions above partisan politics.

 

[Annie]

For me, dear lady, it is a given. Taking responsibility for one's actions is neither Republican nor Democrat, Liberal or Conservative. As human beings, it is possible for any of us, through ignorance or intent, to cause harm to others. To pretend otherwise is is pollyanish at best, delusional at worst, regardless of one's political affiliation or philosophy.

For those unwilling to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions, we have laws and the courts to enforce that responsibility. Those laws and courts, and officers of the courts, must function as impartially as humanly possible.

If any attempt was made by this Administration, or members of this Administration, to interfere with or subvert those functions, it must be rooted out, wherever the evidence may lead. And if found complicit in these efforts to undermine the justice system, they should step aside for those for whom loyalty to party and President is secondary to their oaths to support and defend the Constitution. If it turns out to be a "witch-hunt on the part of the Democrats, then shame on them. They should hand over their positions to those who will put loyalty to the Constitution and its institutions above partisan politics.

and if their only 'sin' was communication, which I think is more than likely, you will 'forgive'? I don't think so, nor do I . On the other hand, to villify the way you and others have for years, no. It's wrong, perhaps more wrong.

 

[glockmail]

I did the responsible thing and moved the whole conversation to this thread, But enough of this attempt to change the subject. Why don't you have a crack at those questions I posed for red?

Why would I bother, are you Lucy and I'm supposed to be Charlie Brown? You haven't been able to post anything serious since I've been visiting here. It's all "chimpy this, and chimpy that".

 

[Bullypulpit]

and if their only 'sin' was communication, which I think is more than likely, you will 'forgive'? I don't think so, nor do I . On the other hand, to villify the way you and others have for years, no. It's wrong, perhaps more wrong.

Given the magnitude of this administration's past sins, miscommunication in this matter would be among the least of them, and the most forgivable.

As for vilification of the Bush Administration, I think you give me too much credit. Defamation requires libelous or slanderous statements which, to my mind, I have not made regarding this administration. I have stated my opinions of the Bush administration based of the facts of its tenure in office. But, if that is vilification, then I am guilty as charged. So we must continue to agree to disagree on the nature of this Administration.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Why would I bother, are you Lucy and I'm supposed to be Charlie Brown? You haven't been able to post anything serious since I've been visiting here. It's all "chimpy this, and chimpy that".

So, let's skip the childish insults and stay on topic here. Care to have a crack at the questions posed in <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=540874&postcount=47>#47</a> and <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=540875&postcount=48>#48</a>?

 

[pegwinn]

Well, since no one seems up to the challenge, I'll just add fuel to the fire.

It seems that on November 27, 2006, a mere 10 days before seven US attorneys were sacked, Alberto Gonzalez met with senior advisers to discuss those firings. Now, this contradicts his previous statements that he didn't know anything about the firings or what his underlings were doing with regard to those firings. Is his memory as faulty as Scooter's? I hope so, and with the same consequences.

See, one more reason why the answer to the initial question should have been "Because I can, next question please".

 

[Mr.Conley]

I notice that you posted after I gave the other kids the answer. You are correct. The only way it will happen is if Bush chooses for it to happen.

Actually now that I think of it the people subpeoned don't have to be coerced. They'd probably just go on their own out of fear of facing jailtime and/or fines. No executive needed. Plus, agents of the court could probably do the job of finding any others.

You cannot know for a fact that he would be impeached unless you and Ms Cleo are uh intimate, yeah, that's the word. And, impeachment isn't removal from office. So what's the big deal? It aint like he's running for office again.

What the Hell kind of President wants the title "Only Impeached President in United States History" hanging under his name in the history books?


Here's an analogy: you don't have to work. The only reason most people take any sort of job isn't for love of the work, but to pay the mortgage. Sure, you can quit your job at anytime. The bottom line is you DON'T have to be there, but, if you quit, then you're in for a whole lotta shit. Remember the bills have to be paid, the house note meet, the kids need stuff for school, not to mention you've gotta eat. Sure, you could quit you're job and never take another one again for the rest of your life, but the consequences of that action prohibit just about everyone who hasn't won the lottery from actually taking this course of action. You aren't constrained by your own inability; the situation in which you exist simply necessitates the course of action your taking. You don't HAVE to work, but no rational person wants to life with the consequences of not working. They are, in effect, constrained to one possible path, which is work. Our President finds himself in a similar situation. He has the power to prohibit Rove from testifying, but the circumstances of the situation effectively limit him to only one course of action because all other possible scenarios create too much havic to justify any other response. He isn't the one in control of the situation here, Congress, the media and, possibly the courts are. He is, for now, beholden to them.

 

[pegwinn]

Actually now that I think of it the people subpeoned don't have to be coerced. They'd probably just go on their own out of fear of facing jailtime and/or fines. No executive needed. Plus, agents of the court could probably do the job of finding any others.

Possible. As I said, it'll only happen by choice.

What the Hell kind of President wants the title "Only Impeached President in United States History" hanging under his name in the history books?

Ask Johnson and Clinton.
Impeachment isn't removal. It is the precursor and in no way guarantees the result you want.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Possible. As I said, it'll only happen by choice.

A choice reached out of fear of consequences imposed on them by the Congress.

I choose to pay my taxes, but only because the IRS will arrest me if I don't.

Ask Johnson and Clinton.
Impeachment isn't removal. It is the precursor and in no way guarantees the result you want.

Impeachment is a two part process. Johnson and Clinton only jumped through the first hoop. The second hoop is what gets you removed from office. And, regardless, I highly doubt Bush is trying to add an impeachment trial to his legacy right now.