- Banned
- #1
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh goody--another round of "hearings" to select a new one. :yawn:
Good news: the long national nightmare is just about over.
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
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 judges? Id 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, Im 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?
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 ?
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!
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.