Someone just answered one of the many "Why won't Bush let Rove and Miers testify under oath" questions by saying that Democrats just want to set up a perjury trap for Bush's administration.
Wait a minute. When Democrats complained that Clinton was backed into a corner and lied under oath only because of that, it wasn't a good enough excuse. But if Bush allowed Rove and Miers to testify under oath and they lied... it would only be because Democrats forced them to, and that's an acceptable explanation? How does that work? Do you NOT see the hypocrisy here?
Before you jump on me: Clinton deserved to be impeached. I fully believe that. I am not defending his actions. I am pointing out the lack of integrity of Republicans avoiding having to say anything under oath because they won't be able to lie without punishment.
That is basically what this boils down to. They want to be able to lie, and if they're sworn to tell the truth, they know they could go to jail if they lie.
2007-03-21 02:56:29 · 14 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You hit it on the head. It's just a big joke.
2007-03-21 03:00:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
Let's get to the point here. This is a political witch hunt. Bush cannot do anything right. All the democrats want to do is embarass Dubya at any cost.
These people were political appointees. They are appointed and removed by the president. Since they are not civil servants, they do not have the same protection. To back my point, here is an excerpt from the DOJ web site:
In the Department, the authority to make appointments to positions in the noncareer ("political") SES, to "key executive" positions in the career SES, and to positions in Schedule C of the excepted service is vested in the Deputy Attorney General. A political appointee in the Department serves as "White House Liaison" and coordinates political appointments with the White House Office of Presidential Personnel.
http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/ps/guitrans.htm
Clinton fired all 93 attorneys and he had every right to do so. That is the danger of taking this type of job. Bush has fired 8 or so in 8 years and it was at the end of their appointment term. So its not an issue.
This is just more political grandstanding by the democrats because they really don't have a plan right now to get anything done in congress. The only plan they have right now is to embarass Bush so that the democratic party can take over the White House.
2007-03-21 03:43:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Is there actually a question involved here?
I think the point you're missing is that Gonzalez has the right (as a boss) to dismiss whomever he pleases. This happens everyday, within private and public office, and Congress need not be involved.
If there was UNLAWFUL dismissal, would not the courts and the EOCC be the forum to discuss any redress?
Congress is for LEGISLATIVE purposes ONLY. If any undue action was taken it is up to a court of law to decide, NOT a group of ineffectual lawmakers.
Comparing Bush to Clinton is like comparing apples and oranges. Sure, they're both fruits, but they have entirely different aspects....and legitimacy problems. The HYPOCRISY is that Clinton had 93 attorneys fired under Janet Reno...yet I didn't hear an outcry from Dems that this was inappropiate....because it wasn't.
It's just business as usual, American-style! Those fired are now free to pursue other interests just like you and me.
2007-03-21 03:18:13 · answer #3 · answered by firehorsegirl 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
While I completely agree on the similarities between this and the Clinton Impeachment.. I can honestly say I wish my party would be the one to stand up and say Ok Ok.. we've both been acting like 3 year olds... lets be adults now... and just drop trying to find ways to get at the president... lets focus on moving forward.. not the past.... one thing I have said from the start is that impeachment only hurts our nation.
2007-03-21 03:15:04 · answer #4 · answered by pip 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Assistants to the president are not liable to appear before a hostile congress under oath, a congress just wanting to cause trouble for political gain.
2007-03-21 03:09:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
no count number what structure the Republicans are in human beings are not happy with the Dems both, possibly you should attempt focusing on that. in spite of everything, the Dems are those ruining the country on the prompt.
2016-12-02 08:36:16 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe the goal here is to get the truth! Not to "catch anyone in a lie". Or, is that all the dems care about??
You know, like John said, most dems and liberals still, to this day, defend Clinton! Talk about hypocracy?!
2007-03-21 03:02:38 · answer #7 · answered by panthrchic 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Sorry, that is not my concern....my concern is that the Democratic congress is looking to find anything and everything that will make the current administration look bad. If the government cannot stand united, regardless of political party, the government will be like kids in a "tattletale" fight and what will be accomplished? Nothing!
2007-03-21 03:06:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
The difference is Clinton couldn't remember EXACT details and you guys shrugged your shoulders and said oh thats ok.
But if a Bush administration offical couldn't remember to the "T", you'd be all over him. You want ot impeach him. You hate the man. Your name shows this
Politics as usual
2007-03-21 03:00:42 · answer #9 · answered by John 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Perhaps a little water-boarding,will get to the bottom of things.....It's not torture,you know,, or so these very people have said,.. so it should be OK to use....Right..?...Let the WATER-BOARDING BEGIN.....
2007-03-21 03:07:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
You do not understand the situation. Clinton lied in court, he was in no way forced to lie, he jut did. There are more factors to consider in this situation, the liberals have different scare tactics, and must be handled differently.
2007-03-21 03:06:39 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋