Or is this just another reason to flock together against Bush? Why wouldn't Bush be supportive of his Attny. General?? Name a former democrat that wouldn't do the same? The point is to be supportive of your staff, otherwise there's no foundation, right??
2007-03-21 05:31:17 · 14 answers · asked by panthrchic 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Im not incinuating that there is anything terrible going on here. Did you miss my point completely?? There is nothing terrible going on here, and no one knows the truth yet anyway, so don't incinuate that anyone "lied". Do you know for a fact that there were NOT performance issues??
2007-03-21 05:40:11 · update #1
They are just doing this as a way to get their names in the paper, and to not do the work that they were hired/elected to do....such as deal with immigration, budget, national defence, etc.
Since they have no plans or ideas on how to solve any problems, they try to bash the President to get their names in the papers.....same old democrats in office.
2007-03-21 05:36:22 · answer #1 · answered by lorencehill 3 · 1⤊ 5⤋
it is disingenuous of you, at maximum suitable, to accuse the Democrats of "telling such fairly some lies," and then decline to checklist even considered one of them. So people who could disagree with you're left to think of what that's you're questioning. As issues stand as we talk, attorney usual Gonzalez's very own chief of group reluctantly admitted that the attorney usual lied approximately no longer being part of the discussions or the call making technique that led to those firings. And by using ways, this guy isn't a Democrat, and he's of an analogous opinion that the A.G. and the President have the splendid to fire all and sundry at any time. there are a number of stuff in existence that are criminal, or a minimum of no longer unlawful, that are nevertheless unethical or a minimum of recommend lively. there is not any regulation or coverage at our college which says that i won't be in a position to stroll into type day after today (Friday) and announce that a before unmentioned time era paper is due on Monday. i'm completely in my rights to realize this, and there have been professors in the previous who've been that stressful and that arbitrary. yet that would not recommend that doing this would mirror good coaching or instruct my scholars something different than existence is hell at times. evidently that maximum of those firings of Republican appointees got here without lots if something in the way of past warning. in actuality, a lot of those human beings have superb song information. the reality that, regardless of what he has stated publicly until now, Gonzalez did seek for suggestion from with political experts to the President on those firings makes issues look suspicious to declare the least. Then the President refuses to enable his aids testify under oath, and yet another of Gonzalez's underlings tells all human beings previous to time that she would be in a position to invoke the 5th modification while no one even knew a criminal offense became meditated. issues look even odder. wager what Republicans would have accomplished to Janet Reno if she had accomplished all this under President Clinton? the comparable if no longer worse.
2016-12-15 05:26:35 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they do care about truth which is why they want people to testify under oath and not off the record. There is nothing wrong with being supportive of your staff but hindering an investigation steps across the line to obstruction of justice. It's crazy, Republicans spent 8 yrs investigating Clinton for everything. Now after 6 yrs in office people are finally starting to investigate Bush and all of a sudden it's partisanship. You can't have it both ways.
2007-03-21 06:23:26 · answer #3 · answered by quetzalcoatl 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No one says it was illegal yet.. But by refusing to answer the question will remain.. What is being hidden? It's not just the dems that are talking.. many republicans are asking the same thing..
All anyone wants to know is IF there is something being hidden, and by Bush and co reactions I now have the same question.. If everything is legit, then lets find out and go on to more important issues.. If something is being hidden then we all deserve the right to know that our government is not being truthful to us and we need to rid the corruption.. The solution is very simple.. put them under oath and lets find out.. The truth can't hurt ya unless you are hiding something.. And to run from it and to use presidential power to refuse the truth from being found out is very corrupt! Face it.. Simple solution is to answer under oath and either prove the questions wrong or be suspect of a corrupt government. Truth can't hurt unless it's a lie.
Think about it.. if this all proves to be just a witch hunt.. then the egg will be in the face of the libs.. Isn't THAT what all you cons want?? HERES YOUR CHANCE....
2007-03-21 06:10:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It would have been nice to have been told the truth, rather than lied to about the reason why they were fired.
It indicates that there's more to this than meets the eye, and that perhaps they should find out what that is.
I don't see anything so terrible about that. Why do you?
EDIT: Considering the fact that each and every of the fired attorneys had "Outstanding" ratings on their performance, I would say if it IS performance related they're setting the bar a bit inhumanly high.
2007-03-21 05:35:30 · answer #5 · answered by witchiebunny 3 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I know I care about the truth. Even more so now that Bush is saying that there is nothing to worry about so there is no need to find the truth out.
I trust no politician that says: Just trust me. There is no need to delve into this any further. But if you insist I'm going to tell the people that you question to not answer to you because there is no need not trust me.
2007-03-21 05:38:19 · answer #6 · answered by FaerieWhings 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
That is exactly why they are trying to get Bush's cronies to testify under oath-In your own words my Chickenhawk neo-con freind (remeber the Patriot act???) "If you don't have anything to hide there is nothing to worry about."
2007-03-21 05:36:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
seems like you are asking and answering your own question.
but if cons have nothing to hide then i assume that they will have no objection to testifying under oath in front of the congress.
glad i could clear this up for you.
if rove has nothing to hide, let him testify...
2007-03-21 05:50:03 · answer #8 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yeah we care about the truth. That's why we are going to serve subpoenas.
2007-03-21 05:45:59 · answer #9 · answered by Count Acumen 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
We already know why they were fired, that's why he's refusing to cooperate with the hearings. No other president has fired them mid-term. It's his (Bush's) dictator mentality. Bush simply thinks he's above the law.
2007-03-21 05:37:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋