Recently President Bush offered the chance to the senate to question Karl Rove but not under Oath!
2007-03-20 16:49:27 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I seem to remember Cons blasting Clinton for trying to use executive privilege to keep his aids from testifying. Hmmm, I smell hypocrisy.
2007-03-20 17:23:54 · answer #1 · answered by God 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He might as well have refused, that's as much truth as they'll get out of Rove if he isn't put under oath. It's absolutely ridiculous. It's like admitting you aren't going to tell the truth in the first place! If you can't answer the questions under oath, then what? We're supposed to take the word of the likes of an man like Karl Rove? Yeah, "trust me." The arrogance of both of them knows no bounds.
The great thing is that a man by the last name of Sampson, Rove's top aide, has caved and has said he is ready to take an oath and tell the details about all of this mess. Will they stop him? They certainly can if they wish, but it will only add to the perception of corrupt practices by this Administration.
2007-03-20 17:15:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is about time the Congress started exercising over-site of what is going on in this country! Cheney and his Puppet Bush have pulled this interview stuff before and I believe the people in power should be accountable to We The People and our Representatives there in Washington DC. that is why we elect Senate and a House of Representatives. I also agree with them when they said no interview we want them under OATH! Although I still do not trust Rove to tell the truth! He is the kind of person that the end's do justify the means.
2007-03-21 04:40:15 · answer #3 · answered by controlac 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes Karl Rove should be required to testify under oath. its about time this worm of man show his true colors and let the public know how this whit house has operated on the issue of politics.
2007-03-21 01:21:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and I hope the courts agree. What Bush did today was laughable. He knows there's tons of evidence in all those emails to nail him and Gonzales to the wall. He think's that just because he's President, he can play tough guy, but in reality, he has to abide by the Constitution, just like any other President. Sorry neo cons, this isn't a fascist state yet. Bush's supposed deal only WEAKENS their position in the public eye.
If you have nothing to hide, and you think it is just a non-issue that Congress has no power or authority over, then you don't make this offer.
This offer ACKNOWLEDGES the problem, gives it legitimacy, while saying, "we don't want to be under oath because we might have to lie."
2007-03-20 17:02:50 · answer #5 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, if he has nothing to hide and has done nothing wrong then what is wrong with testifying under oath. Wouldn't that just strengthen his case? Showing that he and the Administration has nothing to hide? And if the Bush Administration has done nothing wrong, then why are they fighting so hard not to testify under oath? This makes me feel that they do have something to hide.
2007-03-20 17:50:22 · answer #6 · answered by j 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i'm sorry, yet do you recommend what's Karl rove's objection to allowing Bush to allow Karl rove to testify? Karl Rove: Bush's mind. Or in Biblical words: The prophet of the Beast. to make certain why our united states is in a spiraling lack of life watch those loose GOOGLE VIDEO's: "Freedom to Fascism" "the line to Tyranny" "9/11 Revisited" "free replace" "Terrorstorm" "darkish secrets and techniques: contained in the Bohemian Grove"
2016-12-02 08:14:29 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not under oath and in private and no documentation allowed. kinda makes ya wonder what answers Rove would give that are so damaging that he can't be compelled to tell the truth in public and have it written down for posterity. huh?
2007-03-20 17:35:33 · answer #8 · answered by nebtet 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, he should not. Once the "door" is open, it can not be closed. What White-house employee will not worry that they will be called before every stupid, yes stupid, House committee. They would have to be busy protecting themselves & not the country. If the House were really interested in what Karl Rove had to say they would not set into motion a 2-3 year court battle. Liars would lie "under oath" as fast as not under oath a.k.a number of people convicted with lying under oath. Other than Clinton & Libby, few come to mind. This is more a complete waste of time as most of what our new & unimproved House has been doing.
More time is being spent on how to embarrass a lame duck president than on how to make America a better place to live.
2007-03-20 17:01:43 · answer #9 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0⤊ 6⤋
It is a waste of good money...You know good money after bad. The issue is a witch hunt and we need to put our priorities in order. Nothing ever comes of issues like this and domestic issues are put on the back burner, we all loose. I think the disgrace has merit but to much is at stake for the people that need help in this country. Government is trying to hide the cost of war and it cost less to argue politics than to address our needs.
2007-03-20 17:34:29 · answer #10 · answered by Pablo 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋