What good reason would Bush have to stop Rove from taking stand?

Question

Anyone who values integrity and is truly a public servant with nothing to hide, should stand up like a man because he has nothing to hide, shouldnt he?

Anyone with Integrity and Honour, would not argue to support Bush and rove and the lot of them

this is how I think democrats and reporters should come at them .. question their integrity and honour

William sums it up perfectly. Repblicans could care less about Integrity and Honour.
Thanks for showing us what your issues and reminding us of the republican values (lack of)

Gary -- you say the republicans have been intimated?
So they have no true loyalty to the american people, is what youre implying????

Charlie S -- the president does have the ability tochoose his attorney's.

Bu the true question is once in place - those attorneys function is one of upholding the constitution.
If this adminitration tries to prevent infractions from being exposed or investigations from being pursued, thats when it becomes a blatant misuse of political power -- and attempt to impede justice.
That cannot be stood for.

Answer 1

If even just 50% of the truth came out, Bush and his entire crime syndicate would find themselves hanging by their necks on the White House lawn.

Answer 2

He knows where the "bodies" are buried. Most of the burials he helped orchestrate.
The Executive privilege that will more than likely be pulled was a precedent set by Richard Nixon. This does not involve National Security. It can be shown that other presidents prior to him had had no problem allowing their staff to talk to Congress under oath. If there is nothing to hide and none of the "firings" interfered in any on-going investigations into public corruption involving Republicans, then there should be no shielding of Karl Rove et al.
I think they are trying to do this stall because they threw Harriet Miers under the bus and if she is subpoenaed and testifies under oath that she did NOT do what they said she did, then Karl has more explaining to do.
The Justice Department acknowledged that one of the "firings" was to give a Karl Rove crony the job. He might also have a problem with a little remembered "firing" per se of a U.S. Attorney from Guam who had been investigating Jack Abramoff. U.S. Attorney Frederick A. Black had investigators looking into Abramoff's secret arrangement with Superior Court officials to lobby against a court revision bill then pending in the U.S. Congress. A grand jury subpoena was issued Nov. 18, 2002. A day later U.S. Atty. Frederick A. Black was demoted. The investigation went away soon after that.

Answer 3

His reason is that he is trying to protect the decision making process and the advice the president gets from his advisors. He says that if he allows compelled testimony under oath, it will limit the ability of advisors to give honest advice without fear of being called before Congress to testify on it. It's called executive privilege.

While I can understand why one might invoke this privilege where national security is at issue, I fail to see how it benefits the country in an inquiry dealing with, as Bush himself has stated, a political event. It seems clear that the prosecuting arm of the judiciary has overwhelmingly targeted Democrats for prosecution or investigation during the Bush administration. It is clear that the prosecutors who lost their jobs were perfoming at a high level in terms of case clearance. It is clear that they were smeared by the administration by having the reason stated for their firing as poor perfomance.

The prosecutors serve at the will of the president and he does have the right to fire them for any reason or no reason at all. But the manner in which this was undertaken was petty and vindictive. People's careers have potentially been ruined. And the administration has a moral duty to come clean in the public forum, under oath, or risk furhter erosion of their public support, as well as the support of the core Republican voting base, in the run up to the '08 elections.

Answer 4

Bush has foolishly trapped himself into a Constitutional show down by obstructing Congressional investigations into whether this White House has politicized the judiciary.
Webbrew, we need to know why these 8 prosecuting attorneys were fired. If the WH won't be forthcoming and candid, then a subpoena to testify under oath can compel Rove and Miers to testify. If Bush did nothing wrong, why
is he refusing to let them appear under oath.
I do wonder how the Supreme Court will treat this.

Answer 5

Honour is the english version of spelling the word, and a proper spelling.

We aren't talking about anything to do with war or top secret missions, but the accusation of 8 attorneys being fired incorrectly and illegally. If there is nothing to hide then there is no reason to not take the stand.

Answer 6

There is no 'good reason' to stop Rove from answering questions under oath. This is classic Bush to take to the offense and attack ours when you are caught mis-stating the truth.

This time I think the Bush Administration has been cornered and the Democratic control Congress will have a field day. Instead of being smart like Nixon was and resigning with dignity, Bush will cause the down fall of the Republican Party as he has the country.

Answer 7

So tell me, what has Bush done wrong?

This is nothing but a fishing expedition.

Why should Rove not take the stand? A little phrase you know little about, but it affects you every day: National Security.

Leftists are desperate for something, ANYTHING, that will put them back in the White House. Losers all!

Note: Integrity and honor (please use the right spelling)? What would questioning that do? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Addition: Dude, Democrats are only concerned about power. This has nothing to do with your vaunted integrity and honor. You're just too partisan to see it. So are your sycophantic chorus of posters blindly agreeing with you.

Last edit: These attorney serve at the pleasure of the PRESIDENT of the United States. Did you say anything when Bill Clinton fired all 93 back in 1993? It is the presidential prerogative to remove those he doesn't want there. No law broken, no constitutional crisis, no anything. Hmmm, judging by your grading, I can see that the truth does hurt, doesn't it?

Answer 8

Sense the Patriot Act, and the Wire Taping of Americans, one of the Things The Bush Administration has said is "If you have nothing to hide then you should not worry"........Well if they have nothing to Hide then Y not Testify........

Answer 9

Like I have been saying for 3 years-this adm is dirty-not the Republican Party-they have some good ideals as well as good people-they have been intimidated (with a few exceptions) by their own party.

Answer 10

I would think that the only reason is that he has something to hide.