Read this small quote and tell me as an educated person whether this is not utter contempt?
"I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials."
Bush's offer includes allowing a bipartisan group of committee members to interview Rove, Miers and their two deputies -- but not under oath and without a transcript of the proceedings.
What has this President got to Hide?????????? WHAT?
2007-03-21 04:27:19 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Presidential Privilege has only been tried twice in US history.
First by Nixon in Watergate. Which was to cover up the illegal acts. And he LOST his case for Presidential Privilege.
Second by Clinton. Which was to cover up his improper acts with Monika and lying about it. And he DROPPED his attempt to use Presidential Privilege.
So wake up and realize that the ONLY reason Bush is using the SAME EXCUSES as Nixon and Clinton is to cover up something. If nothing wrong has happened there is no reason to cry "Presidential Privilege". NO President has ever used it for any reason other than to cover up something.
Note to Cappi- Do YOU remember Whitewater? $60 million of tax payer money spent. And there was insufficient evidence to charge the Clinton's with anything. $60 million!!!!! Talk about a witch hunt! All that money spent and they get him on lying about a sexual matter that should have been something concerning him, his wife and the other woman. Why are cons so obsessed about other peoples sex lives? Especially when their own leaders have multiple divorces, marriages, affairs and scandals of their own? Funny how the real juicy sex scandals come from the cons and it's the liberals who have far more stable marriages.
2007-03-22 05:43:47 · answer #1 · answered by mdbshop 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush and his Administration are very arrogant and think they are above the law and don't answer to anyone. This is the attitude that he has, and the majority of American people allow him to do the things that he does. Such as trump all over our Constitution. The evidence of this is when people say he should not be impeached because he has committed no crime, but he did take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. When he violates that oath and the Constitution should that not at least be considered misconduct in office? After all, Clinton was impeached on perjury alone. And judging from Bush and his Administration's past legislation and conduct, I am fairly sure that they have a lot to hide. Otherwise, he would not be fighting so hard to keep them from testifying under oath.
2007-03-21 05:10:26 · answer #2 · answered by j 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The administration isn't going to respect anyone it can walk all over. It's human nature-you respect someone who puts up a fight for their rights and shows that they're not going to be pushed around.
The American people, as a whole, haven't done that. They're content to just gloss over what the government is doing because apathy is easier than giving a d*mn.
And so the administration regards the American people with contempt.
2007-03-21 04:33:58 · answer #3 · answered by witchiebunny 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
This may end up in the Supreme Court if either side refuses to budge. Bush claims that the Democrats only care about media uproar and not the truth. I'm sorry, but he's grasping here. He has something to hide and doesn't want it coming out in public. The public has a RIGHT to know of any wrong doing in this administration.
2007-03-21 04:33:19 · answer #4 · answered by Groovy 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Sure it is contempt - contempt for the witch-hunting Democrats in Congress who are overstepping their authority in trying to control the Executive branch. And they've earned that contempt - they have acted quite contemptibly.
Why should he allow them to testify under oath for this show-trial? The Democrat-led congress is getting an appropriate and well-deserved smack down (finally!).
As for that "what has he got to hide" stuff, don't you chastise Republicans and conservatives who use that in answer to your outrage about provisions of the Patriot Act and other national security programs? It's a lousy argument either way, and holds no water.
2007-03-21 04:50:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
He will probably take a similar stance on every issue. This has a tendency to draw attention from troop buildups. Its actually a pretty smart idea.
2007-03-21 04:34:26 · answer #6 · answered by this_takes_awhile 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Do you remember the specticle that was Whitewater? And you think that THIS administration has a monopoly of contempt for the American people?
Real honesty is appreciated but political bias that sees only what they want to see is not appreciated.
As a point of advice to all liberals. The more you attack the man that is the President, the less respect you will have from fellow Americans that are conservative. Not that we defend him on everthing...he doesn't get a "pass" just because he is republican.
But issues are far more important to us and are points that I think we can find more common ground about.
2007-03-21 04:48:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
No big deal Clinton said that for 7 1/2 years approx. I do not think there is any thing to hide there it is merely a witch hunt.
2007-03-21 04:40:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Protecting his staff from a witch hunt is his job as a boss. The liberal Congress is seeking revenge for Slick Willie Clinton. It is obvious to all of American, the Democrats simple don't care that this is a waste of time and money.
2007-03-21 04:37:59 · answer #9 · answered by Mother 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
He is afraid of another scandal, , If i was in congress I would demand public hearings under oath to get to the bottom of his lies.
2007-03-21 04:34:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋