I don't see our loyal civil servant volunteering to investigate any of the various Bush Administration mishaps such as the NSA phone mining controversy, the Plame-Wilson CIA leak, the intelligence failures of both 9/11 and Iraq, or the recent controversy concerning the government's examination of hundreds of thousands of private banking records.....for the sake of brevity I have to stop here!
2006-06-27 21:03:08 · 5 answers · asked by B24601 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
esc929..please try to keep up, Starr wasn't exactly objectively appointed, you uninformed moron...Let me educate you on the story behind Starr's appointment (since you clearly don't know): The three-judge panel that named Starr was led by Judge David Sentelle, an appointee of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and a protege of right-wing Senator Jesse Helms. Rehnquist, throughout the years when the Independent Counsel Act was inactive, ensured that two of the three judges on the panel, known as the Special Division, were reliably partisan Republicans. In late July 1994, Helms, fellow Republican senator Lauch Faircloth, and Sentelle met for lunch. All three initially denied that the conversation included the topic of the upcoming special prosecutor, though later Sentelle admitted that it "may" have come up in conversation, and also admitted that he was looking for a Republican "who had been active on the other side of the political fence" to head the newinvestigation.http://en.wikipedia.or
2006-06-27 21:25:05 · update #1
Also, I have to say I find it quite laughable that some people are so remedial in their thought process that they are unable to use abstraction to glean the central point of a concept. Way to ignore the actual issues presented in the question..how typically Republican.
2006-06-27 21:29:46 · update #2
Hehehehe, no kidding. Guess it's pretty obvious that he's only concerned about the integrity of our President when he's being paid to care.
Thanks for bringing it up. There's so many jerks representin' in DC that I forget those who aren't currently in the spotlight.
P.S. Calling the behavior of the whitehouse regarding 9/11 and Iraq "intelligence failures" is being kind. The oval office LET the towers fall. They allowed all those people to die. And to use such a terrible event as a launching pad to blow the crap out of ANOTHER mideast country is just more salt on the wound. It's disgraceful.
2006-06-27 21:16:25 · answer #1 · answered by mia_violenza 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Liberals in a fight, that's a joke in itself.
Make sure you have a copy of the US Constitution when you cowards "gear up".
Pay particlualry close attention to the powers granted the President if the US is ever attacked. You might want to look up the word unlimited as if will be implied many times.
I think the record for challenges to a Presidents authority during military conflicts is 32-0, but knock yourselves out you bunch of mindless trolls.
2006-06-28 04:11:43 · answer #2 · answered by freetyme813 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We're saving it for after the mid-terms, where we will then launch a full scale assault on all of the criminal activities that this administration has perpetrated in the last 6 years!
You guys better gear up for the new war on terror!
2006-06-28 04:07:54 · answer #3 · answered by Truth Seeker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he is on an island somewhere enjoying the money that newt gingrich and his jerk friends gave him. its a shame.
2006-06-28 09:13:50 · answer #4 · answered by david c 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was appointed genius. He didn't just decide to come fourth as a concerned citizen. Please try to keep up.
2006-06-28 04:07:54 · answer #5 · answered by Albert 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋