"...so help me God."

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Mar 20, 2007.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #1
    CNN

    Highly reminiscent of Dubya's testimony before the 9/11 commission, don't you think? He wouldn't allow himself to be sworn in under oath in that investigation either. Now he seems to be worried that Rove and Miers might actually have to tell the truth under oath (or commit perjury, opening themselves to prosecution).

    Gee, you almost want to suspect they're hiding something.

    Move over, Scooter. Looks like you might have company.
     
  2. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #2
    Whatever happened to "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about"? :rolleyes:
     
  3. spork183 macrumors 6502a

    spork183

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #3
    I knew nothing good could come of an administration where the top three guys were named Dick, Bush, and Colin.
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    i've been reading up some on what exactly congress can do when the executive branch refuses to appear. guess what -- they appeal to the DoJ. specifically, to the USA of D.C., who just happens to be gonzalez' personal attorney!

    by all rights, he should recuse himself, but i'm not holding my breath.

    after that, congress does have the ability to bring criminal charges w/o the DoJ, but then we've got (probably) the U.S. Marshalls facing up against the Secret Service detail of Rove (or whoever).

    we honestly could be headed towards a constitutional crisis here.
     
  5. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #5
    Right now Bush is just threatening a "Constitutional showdown" (whatever that means). He knows he's screwed and he's got nothing. The Senate doesn't seem to want anyone to get away with this, now or in the future, so his chances don't look so good:

    http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Overwhelming_vote_on_US_attorneys/20070320-063310-6908r/

     
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #6
    it means he's pitting the executive branch vs the legislative, and counting on the (stacked) courts to either side w/ the executive or draw out the process until 2009.

    it's clearer than ever that bush/cheney neither respect the constitution nor believe in checks and balances.
     
  7. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #7
    I do not understand what the issue is.

    President Clinton fired all, I believe 91, when he came into office.

    President Bush retained most, but has decided to fire 7 of them.

    These guys serve at the pleasure of the President.

    What's the big deal?
     
  8. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #8
    I know what that means, but I guess I'm trying to apply logic and reason where there is none. "Constitutional showdown" just doesn't seem to make much sense. I guess they really do think they're bulletproof, but maybe the only things Katrina and the Plame scandal taught them is to find a good fall guy.

    They tried to make it all about Harriet Miers, but that didn't work, so I guess it'll be Gonzales now?
     
  9. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #9
    from here:
    the USAs who were fired either 1) were investigating republicans, or 2) refusing GOP orders to investigate democrats. this isn't "serving at the pleasure of", this is obstruction of justice.

    just because they can be removed doesn't mean that they can be done so for any reason.
     
  10. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #10
    I'm guessing you missed the other 2 threads on this: here and here.

    Just to brush you up though:

    A quick run down of what the issue is.

    Why we're so mad.

    The difference between Clinton and Bush's firings.

    Republicans angry when Clinton did it who are saying it's ok now, even though it's worse.

    Why it's worse.

    Also why it's worse.

    And more reasons why it's worse.

    Yet another person saying Al lied.

    Bush saying he doesn't think they should have to testify under oath (whatever happened to, "if you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about"?).

    The Senate, saying no one should be able to do this, now or in the future.

    Dems threatening subpoenas and why.

    As I've been saying, they work under the auspices of Bush and his Attorney General, but they work for us. The American people. All of us. They tried to use them for partisan reasons, lied about it, fired people who refused to do unethical and possibly illegal things, lied about it some more, then when they got caught, after the whole "Clinton did it too" didn't absolve them, and after lying some more, decided to further threaten their political opponents (and some allies who are pissed too) if they have the nerve to even inquire about the issue asking for them to say they didn't do anything wrong under oath, which we know they won't, because we have proof they did.

    So, yeah, it's an issue. Do you have any proof it isn't? Because we have lots of proof it is.
     
  11. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
  12. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #12
    I think the black and white text that ranked all them according to their loyalty of the administration, and the subsequent firing of those at the bottom of the list, is proof positive.

    But, leave it to Bush to ignore the facts, he IS the President after all, doesnt that mean he can do what he wants?
     
  13. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #13
    Thank you folks, be sure to try the veal. :D
     
  14. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #14
    That's alright. They pretend to believe in God I suppose. No lightning strikes yet however.
     
  15. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #15
    Ok. Um, you're welcome. Honestly, I was expecting more of an argument. Something...

    Don't tell me we're all going to start agreeing here... because that would be boring. :p
     

Share This Page