If he were not so foolishly secretive and obsessed with executive privellege, this whole mess would never have gotten as big as it is. But then the fireing of the prosecutors was done before Democrats got the gavel. The WH must never have beleived they would be held accountable.
Its going to be a very interesting next two years.
2007-03-21 19:46:26 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Its evident Bush has a few defenders left, even if they don't grasp my point. Its the digging in and refusing to allow aids to testify that is causing problems.
This is probably headed for the USSC.
And yes the WH did something wrong when they removed federal prosecutors who were investigating Republican criminals and not adhering to Bush and Party loyalty.
Either we have an independant judiciary or we don't. Some of us can't see past their noses.
As for Bush bashing, it is only going to get worse for those who voted for and still support him.
I will get a bag of popcorn and watch the show.
2007-03-21 19:56:09 · update #1
Bret: Eisenhower ; Nixon was Eisenhower's VP.
Remember LBJ was Kennedy's VP. Also Bush is attempting to claim executive privellege (sp) just as Nixon did. Again the WH never thought they would lose control of the House or Representatives.
Now we are beginning to see some accountability.
ONE MORE THING: Even if I never voted for ANY of the Bushes, as an American Citizen, they are our employees. Bush does not seem to understand that he is accountable to more than JUST his supporters. We should be able to fire them too.
2007-03-21 20:05:38 · update #2
What is illegal is requireing federal prosecutors to be loyal to the president personally as well as his party.
WE MUST HAVE AN INDEPENDANT JUDICIARY.
Not one beholden to the president and his party.
2007-03-21 20:09:12 · update #3
Jay : So did I. And there ARE similarities. We have a difference of opinion here and I believe you are mistaken.
2007-03-21 20:10:56 · update #4
Vaughn: Buttered ? It astonishes me how narrow and truncated a veiw some of these people have.
Where do they get their opinions? Why don't they see the larger picture? At the moment the Republicans have a very weak hand to play.
Had the White House acted openly and truthfully,
this would never have grown to be such a huge problem for them now. Being a weak and unpopular president does not help either.
Let the subpeonas loose ! Serves them right.
2007-03-21 20:21:16 · update #5
Wondermom: ??? ??? ??? did I miss something ???
2007-03-22 00:49:26 · update #6
Longhair: A day without a Bush administration is better than a day WITH one. Anyday.
2007-03-22 00:50:53 · update #7
Kehkohj: Nicely stated! What is the deal with these people who refuse to see any kind of parallel ?
I don't even think hitting the elephant with a 2 x 4 will ever get its attention. Brainlock in lock step I guess.
Front row seat it is. and we have 20 months of this.
They should never have lost the House of Representatives.
2007-03-22 00:54:11 · update #8
Let's see... Tricky Dickie and Dubya, spying on Americans... Tricky Dickie, lying to the public... Tricky Dickie and Dubya, cronies getting away with all sorts of illegal shenanigans such as violating civilians' Constitutional rights, freedoms and liberties... Tricky Dickie and Dubya, abuse of powers... and how about the fact that both administrations had DICK "Shotgun" Cheney and goofy "Rummy" Rumsfeld AND both administrations tried to control the public media and BOTH administrations were the most secretive administrations marred with scandals and corruption? Both involved in an unpopular war where the super rich and powerful made huge fortunes by profiteering... What, STILL no similarities...? There is no greater deafness than ears that refuse to hear, and no greater blindness than eyes that refuse to see... (old proverb, loosely translated from Spanish).
How many times must someone repeat that the AGs that are NOT re-appointed at the beginning of each Presidential term is NOT firing them? EACH and every President has done the same at the beginning of EACH term... but to FIRE those AGs who were Republicans and were investigating or prosecuting Republican cronies in mid-term...? THAT doesn't merit questioning? Do we STILL have to tell those die-hard Repukes the difference? HEY, even elected Republican officials want to know and are in an uproar but don't want to make waves (but they think something is wrong in this matter).
The situation is not about party loyalty (as Tricky Dickie discovered), it's a matter of abiding by the law and right now, the suspicion is that some one or a few people that work outside the law benefitted from these mid-term firings, and this deserves to be thoroughly investigated or the stigma of impropriety will linger far longer the remainder of Dubya's term of office and affect the public's trust on the GOP. IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, as some love to say... they SHOULD and MUST answer questions UNDER OATH.
NO ONE in this country is above the law or the Constitution, not even Dubya or Cheney who impose laws, ethics and morals on the rest of Americans that they themselves seem to BELIEVE they are above of...!
EDITED: I like to mix buttered popcorn with caramel popcorn... and I'm reserving a front row seat!
2007-03-21 22:07:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Definitely this was at Nixon's point where he snitched on his whole Administration. He wouldn't turn the tapes over until he was hit for obstruction of justice. For some reason Bush thinks he is better then Nixon and the American people, Nixon was sure wrong and Bush will be too.
2007-03-22 00:38:55 · answer #2 · answered by leonard bruce 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Have you noticed that when you said "what happened with Nixon," a lot of the Bush supporters don't even bring it back to Watergate? China indeed. *sigh*
YES, this reminds me of Watergate, except that Nixon had to let his aides testify under oath. CLINTON let his aides testify under oath. In fact, it's been fairly common. That Bush would say that it's "reasonable" to only allow his aids to be interviewed a) in private, b) NOT under oath, and c) with no transcript is sheer idiocy.
And you're right. The performance reviews of the fired prosecutors have come out, and they were excellent--these people were NOT fired for doing a bad job. Most of them were either pursuing criminal cases against Republicans, or refusing to pursue criminal cases against the enemies of this administration. To fire them for that is to spit on our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
Do you have any extra popcorn? Once the subpoenas start to fly, it should indeed turn out to be quite a show.
ETA: Yes, buttered would be great, thanks! :-)
2007-03-21 20:10:59 · answer #3 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush has done worse things than that. I don't know whats the BIG deal. Its his right to fire them. It maybe inappropriate, but I don't think its illegal. THe BBC talked about it and got both parties its not illegal, but it maybe unseemly. I'll agree about investigating him on torture, and of Valery Plame, and of Domestic SPying, but this seems to be plain politics. Even COngresswoman Sanchez admitted it was a fishing expedition. Granted that She probably didn't realize that she eluded to it. I hope the Democrats would stop this game playing and concentrate on real crimes. It helps prove the points the Republicans are making. If they don't like what Bush did, Congress should change the law. What Bush did is manipulate the system. Congress job is not punish him for an activity that isn't illegal.
2007-03-21 19:56:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Americans usually take a dumb animal out behind the shed and put a bullet between its eyes when its usefulness is over or if it becomes diseased. You gonna keep that one around for 2 more years?
Wait till Arnie declares himself in the running.
2007-03-21 19:59:41 · answer #5 · answered by Noor al Haqiqa 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Nope, this most certainly does not remind me of the Nixon affair.
Except maybe in this way: Nixon was known for his STRONG personality in foreign affairs. He didn't take crappola from anyone. In fact, as Vice President, Nixon was sent all over the world to put out fires. He was famous for his performance in Central America.
And, of course, his diplomacy with China is the stuff of legend.
The Executive does NOT submit it's staff to oversight by the Legislative branch. haven't you heard of the separation of powers? Should the Executive start to investigate Congress? Of course not!
We ALL have the right to NOT give evidence against ourselves. And that, my friend, is what they would be doing if they agreed to testify under oath.
No lawyer in the country would recommend talking with police investigating you for a crime, either. You keep your mouth shut, regardless of guilt or innocence. A court of law is where you tell your story if you are under accusation of a crime.
They can't have their cake and eat it too. Under oath, no testify. Not under oath, speak whole lot.
No ticky, no laundry.
And my bad, Nixon was indeed V.P. for Eisenhower, not JFK.
2007-03-21 19:54:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
NO!! Nixon was involve in the mess after the fact.
2007-03-21 21:27:47 · answer #7 · answered by wondermom 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
well bush should have the same rights as Clinton to fire prosecutors . they know that bush could let them go at anytime they were there because bush let them stay. congress is just after any thing they can get carol Rowe on
2007-03-21 19:55:55 · answer #8 · answered by dan m 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, when the country got rid of Nixon it was immediately better off. What's going to be better when Bush is gone?
2007-03-21 19:53:08 · answer #9 · answered by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋
No....Bush never opened the doors to Communist China like Nixon did. Enough with the Bush bashing already...it is tired and annoying. Let's make fun of someone else.
2007-03-21 19:50:00 · answer #10 · answered by JR 4 · 3⤊ 5⤋