2007-03-20 21:25:11 · 5 answers · asked by oimwoomwio 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Dakota--
I guess that depends on whether or not you think it's all right to fire certain prosecutors for getting too close to members of your own party, and others for not getting close enough to members of the opposition.
2007-03-20 21:41:49 · update #1
I think Bush has an underlying fear of accountability.
This issue is symptomatic of how his entire administration operates. Dakota seems fairly typical of a large number of people who might choose to remain uninformed - preferring to believe what they want to hear. Out of fairness, I don't know. I hope this is a highschool student not yet experienced in critical thinking. Cognative dissonance? But back to your question: The show down between the WH and Congress is about transparency and true accountability.
We either have an independent judiciary or we don't.
And this applies all the way through our system of Justice.
If we can't prosecute the Duke Cunnighams, Bob Neys, Scooter Libbys and Tom DeLays, then there is no rule of law that applies to the members of the president's party.
2007-03-21 00:05:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
>>>>>"But Bush brings up a good point in protecting the Checks and Balances of our constitution."<<<<
You have got to be kidding!?! Quick! Spit out the Kool-Aid
Bush has tromped on the bill of rights more than any American alive or dead! The last bunch of crooks to testify to Congress under oath was the Big Tobacco. They got caught up in all kinds of lies about additives. Then Big Oil came along smarter than tobacco, they refused to testify under oath. And ain't nobody brushed the dust off of that Bible since then! Even ole Condi Rice won't touch it!
2007-03-21 05:24:07 · answer #2 · answered by sniffels323 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
My guess is there is something to hide. I asked myself the same question when I saw Bush's offer to let them talk in private, with no transcript, and not under oath. If you were not planning to lie, why would you avoid taking an oath? Yeah, something to hide!
2007-03-21 04:31:22 · answer #3 · answered by siddoly 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The whole thing seems fishy. But Bush brings up a good point in protecting the Checks and Balances of our constitution.
But IMO corruption is the name of the game.
2007-03-21 04:34:38 · answer #4 · answered by Joshua T 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Personally I don't understand why the Dems want them to speak under oath in the first place. I guess I just don't get it.
2007-03-21 04:29:40 · answer #5 · answered by dakota29575 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋