Isn't Bush's stance just making things worse? What is he hiding?

Question

Beyond the need for an independant judiciary, free from political influance, I recall what got Nixon in trouble was the lying and coverups. If the WH had acted intelligently, this would not have happened at all, but an open admission and response would have headed off this looming Constitutional show down.

Oh, I know I will get dinged on spelling. Perhaps I can save someone the trouble of pointing it out.
Sorry.

Jacob: Thanks for your input. I completey disagree.
We are not addressing the same issue. Bush, if anything has unConstitutionally assumed more power for the Executive branch than it legally is entitled to have. We SHOULD weaken the WH a little. As for the travel office..Wasn't that back in the CLINTON adminstration? And we are missing the point of the REAL isssue: The White House appears to be using the Judiciary Brancy as an extension of partisan political policy. This is dangerous with respect to checks and balances and accountability for illegal actions.

Real Est: Why do you bring up Clinton? If what Clinton did was wrong, ..that train left the station over 6 years ago. A majority of Americans might not agree with you, I know I don't. The sad irony about this is how Bush is bringing this on himself.
Who is advising the president on this? It seems like the Bush Admin is painting itsself into a corner.

Answer 1

It is making it worse. He is traveling the Nixonian route. Mr. Fred Fielding who is supposedly helping him navigate this rocky road was a Nixon lawyer during Watergate- not a good thing to have around you. Nixon was the first President to pull the Executive privilege trick out of the bag to try and save his skin. The Supreme Court rejected it.
Bush along with his Attorney General have politicized the Justice Department. Investigations into Democrats were at a 7:1 ratio over Republicans. There were 298 investigations of Democrats versus just 67 of Republicans. The problem they ran into was that there was more evidence being turned up on Republicans ( Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney etc) than on the people they had hoped would have been dragged down.
U.S. Attorney David Iglesias- N.M. was fired because it was felt that he was not indicting Democrats fast enough. there was not enough evidence.
U.S. Attorney Carol Lam-CA was fired because she was pursuing an ever widening corruption probe that had started as a result of the investigation into disgraced Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.
U.S. Attorney John Mckay of Seattle was fired because he did not pursue a voter fraud allegation against the Democratic Gubernatorial candidate in the hotly contested 2004. There was absolutely no evidence to warrant an investigation. This was also used a reason not to consider him for a judgeship.
U. S. Attorney Bud Cummins AR. was pursuing corruption and fraud cases involving FEMA and he was replaced by a Karl Rove crony who did not have the prosecutorial experience for the job.
U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden Las Vegas fired to "give somebody else that experience" to build up the back bench of Republicans by giving them high-profile jobs.
Then there is the little remembered U.S. attorney who was ousted to stop an investigation into 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.

If the firings did not stop investigations then what is the worry? The worry is that they did just that.

Answer 2

What's Bush hiding? The truth!

The repukes are so fond of suggesting, "If you have nothing to hide..." Well, now that it's Bushit who's avoiding answering UNDER OATH if he has nothing to hide or his cronies.. why won't they answer question UNDER OATH? After all, as they're so fond of saying, "IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE...!"

I suspect the reason he and his cronies are afraid to answer UNDER OATH is that he's either afraid of telling the truth or he's afraid that they will ALL get charged with lying under oath, PERJURY!

Unless the Republicans force Bush and his cronies to testify UNDER OATH, they are all going to face some serious questions next election... what's that saying about bad things happening and good people doing nothing...? WHERE are the "good," "upstanding," "moral and ethical," "law-abiding" people in the Republican party now?

When good lawyers choose to keep quiet amidst corruption by some bad lawyers, they all look bad; just like police officers that adhere to the Blue Wall of Silence rather than expose the crooked cops... and the same thing is happening right now with the likes of Cheney... and Bush, Rove and the now gone Rumsfeld... and the convicted Libby... why do Republicans who are supposedly "good," "upstanding," "moral and ethical," "law-abiding" people now protecting the corrupt members of their own party...? EVERYONE knew about Foley and they played stupid and ignorant... until his lecherous conduct became public! Now... what are they going to do with Bush and his White House cronies?

EDITED: Jacob W, the difference being that all were simply NOT re-appointed at the BEGINNING of the administraive terms of all past admistrations, and these recent firings were selected during the middle of the term... and the need to KNOW WHY has come up... it seems as though they simply did not go along with the rest of the sheep and questions SHOULD be raised. THAT is why they (some Republicans, too) are questioning why those REPUBLICANS were fired from office. Do some reading, gather your facts and then you can engage in adult conversation, OK?

Answer 3

ultimate ingredient : he's leaving place of work quickly Worst ingredient: Hell there is no person worst ingredient there's a damned myriad of worst issues inclusive of: Ahmed Chalibli, Yellow Cake Uranium, WMD, secret power coverage conferences Violations of FISA court docket regulations Greeted as liberators, The rebuilding pays for itself, venture performed, No plan for the aftermath, the final throes of the insurgency, Terri Shiavo, Anthrax Osama not Captured illicitly diverted $seven hundred million from Afghanistan to Iraq Katrina, Harriet Myers, Heckuva interest Brownie, Paul Bremmer, Scooter Libby, Alberto "I forgot each little thing I did yet sure i'm efficient to do my interest" Gonzales, Jack Abramoff, Valerie Plame, loss of Habeas Corpus Torture coverage gay Prostitute/Reporter Jeff Gannon Gitmo, Abu Graib, Extrodainary renditions, secret prisons coloration coded warnings that magically disappeared after elections, duct tape, Walter Reed, Emails deleted Iranian Nuclear software lies DESTROYED data CIA interrogation tapes

Answer 4

Bush handled this poorly. What he should have done was simply state he was exercising his authority under the constitution to form the US attorneys office's as he sees fit. Gonzalez should have been instructed to inform the media mouth pieces that the firing of Federal prosecutors who did not follow the presidents wishes was none of their business. By apologizing for mistakes that were not made Gonzales et al played right into the hands of those in congress who seek to marginalize the executive branch

Answer 5

I don't think that ANYONE should be above the law and be allowed to ignore a subpoena, especially those that are supposed to be serving us, the citizens. It should be under oath and their testimony on record.

If there is nothing to hide and there are no problems as Bush says then I don't see what the big deal is.

****************

Seriously, the people who thumbed me down. If it was an admin. that you opposed you would be on it like white on rice. But since this is an admin that you support things should be allowed to be kept hush hush. I said NO ONE from ANY ADMIN should be allowed to ignore subpoenas regardless of admin and party affiliation. This topic just happens to be about Bush and his party and he seems to keep finding himself in MANY messes. Too many for me, like most other people in this country and the world.

Answer 6

When Bush threw our troops in Iraq the excuse was that Iraq had arms for massive destruction, after Saddam was hurled down and in all this war paces, no arms had been found; now the excuse is that we are fighting against the terrorism, nothing further from the true, now that we are inside is hard to come out with out leaving a bad taste in the personal interests of the people that are surrounding Mr. Bush, people who gain with this war like in the petroleum field.Now he needs a good excuse to come out, he won't come out saying "I'm sorry, we thought the weapons were there." What's gonna be, who knows, but it got it be real good to keep every one satisfied.

Answer 7

It is a matter of the separation of powers. The democrats are only trying to weaken the president. They know damn well that political appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. They had no problem with that the last time a democrat held the office and fired not 8 attorneys but 93 including the one investigating White Water and replaced her with a Clinton crony.

But now they get their panties all in a bunch over firing 8 of them.

I wonder how the former White House Travel Office staff that Hillary not only fired but persecuted are taking this latest attempt by democrats?

Presidencies do not exist in a vacuum. You cannot look at only the current administration. Every president will be affected by decisions made now. To lament the perfectly legitimate firing of some political appointees and not look at similar firings in other administrations is to be dishonest in your criticism. To try to pretend that a former administrations dumping of 93 is to be ignored but this current administration dumping 8 is going to negatively impact the independence of the judiciary is disingenuous if not out right deceptive.

Answer 8

I think the democrats are getting very close to his tender spot.
This might be the beginning of the end. It's got something to do with a voting scandal and I am afraid the things they could tell might be so damning that it will rock this nation.

Answer 9

you asked what is he hiding, first the war, not legal , no w.m.d. , second, the reason for the war, oil , third , he lied to the world, will he pay for any of this , that's up to the people of the US then the world ,hope this helps ,some day the truth will come out, just my point of view

Answer 10

He is hiding something. As much as he wants the US public to believe unconstitutional wiretapping, checking financial records of people and detaining people without charging them with anything is OK.....He thinks the rules are different when applied to him. For everyone else it's in National Security interest...for him it "Hey... You don't need under oath testimony that can come back and haunt me later...trust me"