Repubs say wanting testimony under oath would be a political show? Are these people insane?

Question

The GOP Congress literally hounded the Clinton Administration for 6 years with useless politically-motivated hearings in the name of its oversight role. As the globe reports, they held an astonishing ***140 hours of hearings on Clinton's Christmas card list*** and, so far, have managed only 12 hours of softballs about Abu Ghraib. A huge majority of Americans and people around the world believe this country is heading in the wrong direction, and the asinine and corrupt Republican leadership of the Congress is a principal reason.

How can they argue that Karl and Harriet should not testify under oath, with no record?

And to see Al Gore's face during the Inhofe Boxer exchange was the best thing I've seen in a long time. Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4iHan7BjqY

If you're still with me, here is another unbelievable click from the talented Jon Stewart. What a week indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmGpUwyG0l4

idiotsreside - can you honestly say that you don't appreciate the difference between the things the right wing accused Clinton of doing, and the crimes committed by the Bush administration? Do you really believe they are in the same ballpark?

Answer 1

yes, this administration believes that the same rules don't apply to them.

how can there be honest testimony if they don't think that there will be consequences if they lie?

Edit: I'm no Liberal, but the DIFFERENCE, Real Estate Para Legal, is that the Bush Administration is firing these attorneys MID TERM. This is highly unusual. Not to mention the fact that 5 of the 8 terminated attorneys were the top performers in the Justice Department.

Every administration hires new attorneys once they reach the White House. Bush fired all of the lawyers that were working under the Clinton Administration as well...that is usual. The fact that these lawyers were fired for not prosecuting democratic party members BEFORE the elections is the very definition of partisanship. And partisanship has NO place in the Justice department. Lady Justice is blind-folded remember?

Answer 2

Well, the Clinton Administration fought testimony from Presidential Assistants also !! For the SAME reason... Congress has no oversight of the White House: it would be unconstitutional.

I agree with BOTH administrations... there are political fishing-expeditions.

John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are both comedic geniuses...

I WISH the Administration and Congress would get up off their collective BUTTS and deal with the important stuff: security, immigration, election reform, ethics reform, CAFE Standards, corporate loopholes, etc.

Amazing though that we're going to have HEARINGS and possible subpoena over the firing of 8 people who serve AT the "Pleasure of the President".

Answer 3

He became impeached! and it became this great scandal and persons made jokes for years, he merely kinda got here back around and resurfaced not too earlier and became much less of a humorous tale, his huge comeback became his e book and that became in basic terms some years in the past, up until then he became especially silent or human beings might make jokes. you certainly sound like the hypocrite because of fact it became the Repubs who had a sh*t slot interior the 1st place and needed him impeached! Jeez how previous are you? have been you even alive back then reason this question makes me think of you weren't and are very youthful or merely not watching the information back then even even though it became extensive and that i don't think of it became undemanding for him in any respect, no one had to be Clinton at that element reason he became getting burned everywhere, jokes, newspaper, information, he became a freakin president not some congressman*. Like I suggested, he became IMPEACHED! and no you could actually say that aside from him and Nixon and that's something which would be with him continuously. So specific there became far extra outrage for Clinton. i don't think of it even compares.

Answer 4

If it was done appropriately in a time when Democrats are not seen as a lynch mob looking to gain political popularity. It would not be a problem, including Dems looking in their pass actions similar to this. Then this could be considered fair.

Answer 5

How can the argue that it is a political show..hmmmm...maybe because the Dems even agree that the firings were and are LEGAL...they just want to expose the reason...
If I were GW I would just come out and say..BECAUSE THEY WERE DEMOCRATS....

Just like Clinton fired 93 GOP Lawyers..but no one said anything about that being illegal....

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE THERE LIBS?

Answer 6

Scooter Libby did nothing wrong. He could have pleaded the 5th. He could have said i do not recall. Yet he tried to be honest and answer the grand jury. Democrats want Bush and will take everyone down until they get to him. It is partisan and a waste of time. Bush should go ahead and pardon everyone in his cabinet and be done with this stupid Democrap stunt.

Answer 7

How can you even ask that with a straight face when you know that the Democrats railed against the hearing when Clinton was in office claiming the same things that the Republicans are claiming now? You can't have it both ways. Why would you think that that it's not hipocracy for the Democrats to demand this testimony when they were so against it when Billybob was in office. Typical two-faced Democrat actions are not impressing anyone.

Answer 8

They would be insane to let anyone put their chief of dirty tricks under oath.

Answer 9

Funny isn't it. Almost like a rich kid that doesn't want to share his toys. My toys you can play or see them.

Answer 10

Yes they are. Fire for effect brother.