White House uses secret memo to fight court order

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jan 5, 2007.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    AP

    personally, i'm getting a little tired of all this abuse of power.
     
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    Here we go again, The reason we have a open govt is to prevent either side from abusing its authority. Bush,protecting Freedom & Truth by removing Freedom & Truth? We alll know Abramhoff & The Republicans were buddies. $$$.
     
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    Oh don't worry, as soon as a Democrat is president again the righties will flip-flop and demand that those records be public.

    Only Republic presidents are allowed to keep those records secret you know...
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    It strikes me that this malAdministration desperately needs to be "taken down" for the health of your entire system. This has gone far beyond political manoeuvring, this is quite outrageous abuse of process.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    Never fear... if they are working this hard to conceal these records, it's because there's something rotten going on. Let's see what the Democrats in power find once they start digging. Which should start pretty soon.
     
  6. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #6
    So, let me get this straight, he can look at my mail or listen to one of my conversations without a warrant, but we can't know who's been in the White House. Which belongs to we, the people, BTW. Not him and his "friends". I'll remember that when someone says something about not having to worry if I have nothing to hide. Guessing they must have something to hide.

    Funny, I remember a few years ago when there was some big controversy about Clinton letting his supporters stay in the Lincoln Bedroom. Seems almost quaint now by comparison. I don't see how the righties can defend this one, but I can't wait to see them try. Hoping the Dems actually have actions to stand behind their words and do something about it.
     
  7. Aniej macrumors 68000

    Aniej

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    #7
    I was not an advocate of the impeachment process when people started mentioning it regarding Bush because I was concerned about the precedent it might set in light of the attempt to impeach President Clinton. It wasn't that I didn't think Bush wasn't a complete disgrace and has trampled on the very notion of the rule of law and ordered liberty, not to mention the whole absurd mess we call the Iraq war (I will note I believe Afghanistan was absolutely the right target, but we have completely botched that too now by way of Iraq), it was just a concern about the state of and stability of the executive office, whomever holds it.

    But for sometime now and with events like those which were just reported, I have had enough. The countless constitutional violations his administration, and he with direct knowledge, have perpetrated is deplorable and deserved of impeachment. I am upset, sad, scared, and embarrassed as an American that loves this nation and what we represent as a people. This man is a disgrace to our nation and I can think of no higher order than for our new congress to take action against him.
     
  8. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #8
    which action though?

    impeachment (which is just a censure) may produce a backlash effect once the "liberal media" goes on and on about how it's simply payback for clinton's impeachment.

    a senate vote for removal requires a 2/3 majority, which i don't think is achievable.

    imo, the best course of action is for congress to conduct a number of simultaneous investigations, calling bush et al to testify as needed. never steer it towards impeachment, just to find the facts and get them to the public.

    but this must be done while conducting other business. it does the dems no good to spend the remaining 2 years of bush's term conducting nothing but a witchhunt. that's the best way for the GOP to keep the WH in 2008.
     
  9. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #9
    I'll be happy if they can just stop him from getting away with some of this stuff. 2 years can't come soon enough, but it will come. Impeachment, though desired and probably justified, would be a waste of time. Holding him accountable, and stopping him from doing these things wouldn't be. Especially if they can reverse some of the damage.

    That being said, they certainly have enough on him to do it if they wanted, and a good percentage of the populace would be behind them.
     
  10. Aniej macrumors 68000

    Aniej

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    #10
    Impeach and convict, that's why I said our Congress and not which House, but I typed a bit hastily and should have noted the senate's role in this. But honestly, do you really think your correction of what I wrote matters to both the intent and reasoning behind what I said; were you ever really confused as to what I was touching on? I kind of doubt it, but then again clarification wasn't really your point anyway was it...

    More importantly I find it really annoying that you repeated half of what I said, then ignored the entire beginning of my post saying why I originally was not in favor of impeachment (and conviction), but now believe his actions warrant such measures. No where did I say anything about the underlying purpose being an attempt to get the white house to divulge information.
     
  11. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #11
    "take action against" is ambiguous. i didn't know which action you meant.
     
  12. Aniej macrumors 68000

    Aniej

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    #12
    Now compare the two...

    Rigghttt so the four sections that followed the first one were all just to help me further elucidate the point I was making so that any ambiguity would be cleared up? thanks, I appreciate that.
     
  13. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    you're welcome.
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    Just investigate. Turn over every rock in this cesspool of an administration, see what slithers out, and if the American people demand Bush's impeachment -- do it. Otherwise just turn the evidence over to a prosecutor after he leaves office.

    The important thing is that government is as transparent to it's people as possible, and that it's evil doers are either brought to justice, or justice is brought to them.
     
  15. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #15
    I've been saying this for a while now -- that not impeaching sets a really, really bad precedent (we impeach for blow jobs, but not for really egregious violations of the Constitution) -- but that the process has to come about naturally, through investigation and revelation.

    Let an independent prosecutor investigate the administration's Iraq justifications, civil liberties violations and other abuses, and the rest will take care of itself. You won't have to worry about people thinking it's a witch hunt. Bush's popularity is already extremely low, and if a credible, non-partisan investigator like Patrick Fitzgerald comes to the conclusion that impeachment proceedings are warranted, most of the public will support them.
     
  16. freebooter macrumors 65816

    freebooter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Location:
    Daegu, South Korea
    #16
    Impeach Bush? No.
    Drive him and his cronies bodily out of the Whitehouse and into a maximum security prison, more like.

    Oh yeah, 'important' people, the princes of this world, don't go to jail, do they, no matter what they do. :rolleyes:
     
  17. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #17
    You know, it's ****in' pathetic that Bush is safe from impeachment for his numerous crimes and trampling of the Constitution because of "political considerations". The Dems can't do it because they'll be crucified by the media and the GOP.

    So we get Clinton impeached for lying about a blowjob while Bush walks away scott-free while shredding the Constitution and wiping his ass with the Geneva Conventions.

    **** that.
     

Share This Page