"There's no indication that anything improper was done."
Oh, really? That's so good to know, since it's YOUR administration under investigation...
Gosh, I guess we'd all better take his word for it.
Isn't that what investigations are FOR?????
If nothing improper was done, then there's no harm in testifying to that effect under oath, is there?
2007-03-20 11:09:28 · 13 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Unique does not mean unilateral. This is America. The President is only one of three branches of our government. He's not a dictator, despite his deepest, darkest wishes.
2007-03-20 11:14:06 · update #1
Agreeing to be questioned but refusing to be sworn in to do so is a joke to anyone with working brain cells. It is as you have said - gosh, we're supposed to take a "trust me" from the likes of Karl Rove? Give me a break. If there's nothing to hide, there's no reason to refuse to answer under oath. How much simpler or more straightforward can that concept be? I have finally faced one thing. I'm seeing Republicans actually trying to defend this mess by acting dumb about the difference between firing U.S. Attorneys en masse at the term beginning and interfering in Justice Dept. matters after the fact. If they are going to continue acting this stupid then I'm going to have to revise my earlier thoughts that they aren't really dumb, just a little blind. This is really too much.
The President has long believed that his branch of government should not have to answer to the others. It's his own special interpretation of the Constitution. He's in for a fight with this one. The Congress is tired of accepting White House spin in place of the real truth. Come to think of it, so am I.
Does anyone recall the book written right before the 2004 election comparing this Administration's corruptness to that of Nixon's Administration and predicting it would end up worse than Nixon's in the end? I can't think of who wrote it, but I'm beginning to think they are a prophet extraordinaire.
2007-03-20 11:21:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Tell me....Tell Me LOL
Why don't all you guys ask your congressmen to do some freakin work!?
This is a minor blip on the radar screen EVEN if there is any truth to it.
Today the Dems packed FOUR BILLION DOLLARS worth of earmarked pork into the defence spending bill - the same earmarks THEY swore 3 freaking weeks ago to abolish.
Don't you people hold your representives responsible?
This is FAR more immediate and important than an investigation over something that isn't illegal in the first place!
2007-03-20 11:37:26 · answer #2 · answered by Garrett S 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
George W. Bush has the last say in many areas. For example, he can veto bills from the legislative branch, which is Congress and the House of Representatives.
"The legislature usually delegates some legislative power to the executive.
"The executive may also have powers to issue legislation during a state of emergency."
President Bush also appoints Supreme Court Judges to open seats.
"As with the legislature, the judiciary cannot enforce its decisions without the help of the executive.
"The executive is also responsible for providing courthouses and paying the salaries of judges...."
So, keep dreaming.
2007-03-20 11:46:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
If it deals with the Executive Branch the President is NOT the final word. Checks and balances, genius.
2007-03-20 11:19:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Is it an investigation for facts or grand standing. I predict that the dims will continue this political attacks for the next two years, Emanuel spelled it out already.
These investigation are aimed a securing the white house in 2008, nothing else.
2007-03-20 11:18:09 · answer #5 · answered by Sgt 524 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Read the Federalists Papers --- president has unique role
2007-03-20 11:12:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because that's what his legal advisors keep telling him.
At least, the ones that haven't had to resign because of all the legal scandals they've been involved in.
Which should tell any reasonable person enough about how much their advice was worth.
2007-03-20 11:20:56 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Last time I checked, the president serves to support and defend the Constitution, not the Federalist papers.
The Republican knee jerk reaction to everything is "cover it up!" It worked so well with Reagan. . .
2007-03-20 11:16:52 · answer #8 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
In certain instances,his word is final and if he was a democrat,he would have a lot more of those instances! Double standards,ya know?
2007-03-20 11:18:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
If it deals with the Executive Branch the President IS the final word..............
2007-03-20 11:15:38 · answer #10 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋