Bush is allowing them to be questioned. He just refuses to allow them to be compelled legally to tell the truth.
Doesn't that strike you as SLIGHTLY suspicious?
Let me rephrase. If a Democrat President did it, wouldn't you have a problem with it?
2007-03-21 09:53:16 · 7 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Archang..or whatever your name is ...Are you serious????
If the shoe was on the other political party foot, you bet your *** that republicans would be all over this like white on rice. Why is the president having a hard time with these people recounting the facts under oath? Unless of course they have something to hide. Suspicious indeed!
Furthermore...how exactly would they twist it if it is under oath? It would be on the record, now wouldn't it.
2007-03-21 10:03:25 · answer #1 · answered by Spirish_1 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
While the recession definitely didn't finish earlier than Obama took workplace, mentioning that Obama ended the Bush recession is an opinion--you might ought to exhibit how he ended it, until it used to be a good-studied and just about universally accredited rationale and outcome courting. I have not seemed up what number of illegals bought deported, but when you're correct on that, that's a well illustration of 'reality'. It's type of humorous. When the evaluations folks have grown up with are challenged, it frequently takes folks somewhat time to observe that it's an opinion and no longer a reality being challenged. Once I used to be announced to the suggestion of historiography, I observed that plenty of matters I notion had been details had been honestly evaluations. Most do not get this type of principal considering in institution. _____________ used to be the rationale of the Civil War You can inform from the grammar and period of the clean which reply the instructor needs--and also you get graded as though this is a reality, while this is a end. And ahandle elements out that you've details and deceptive details. He elements out that unemployment used to be bigger beneath Obama than beneath Bush. He leaves out that everybody noticed this coming. Obama used to be requested in the course of the crusade whether or not unemployment might be beneath 10% in 2012, and he mentioned that he notion it might be approximately 10% (an develop from what it used to be on the time)--anybody who paid concentration knew unemployment used to be going up and that the query used to be how prime might it get. And all of us noticed Michael Moore let us know that Bush in my opinion 'deported' Bin Laden's loved ones. Did he 'in my opinion' deport anybody else? I recognise I used to be dissatisfied with how little the republicans did approximately immigration whilst they had been in workplace, in spite of Bush asking them to recover from the nonsense and get to paintings. Why trouble with details. Now Obama had a supermajority, lol.
2016-09-05 10:59:33 · answer #2 · answered by lino 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a huge difference between being compelled to tell the truth and being under oath. democrats are attempting to criminalize policy and politics. There is no reason Bush should subject those men to answering questions under oath so some democrat with an agenda can twist what they say and throw them in the gulag with scooter libby.
several democrat presidents fired federal prosecutors. Clinton fired many after his initial massacre when he entered office. Carter got some bad press for firing one that was investigating a fellow democrat but I don't think any subpoena's were issued.
2007-03-21 09:58:26 · answer #3 · answered by archangel72901 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I don't think that most repuglians understand anything, even instructions on how to tie their shoes. I think Mr. Bush is trying to hide something. That is his only defense in not allowing that testimony under oath.
2007-03-21 10:01:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Better yet, if it were Bill Clinton, lord Limbaugh and False News would be tripping over themselves while spewing how the president must be hiding something and should also be dragged before congress.
2007-03-21 09:57:18 · answer #5 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
When a Democratic president tried it, they did have a problem with it. And impeached him as a consequence.
2007-03-21 09:57:02 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
"You can question them but you can't do it so that they have to tell you the truth."
Kinda like:
"You can do a recount of the ballots, but you don't have the time to do so."
A little odd.
2007-03-21 09:57:59 · answer #7 · answered by witchiebunny 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋